 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Green v. Barrett, No. 06-15104 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Chief jailer's testimony as to safety of jail was given pursuant to her official duties; therefore, it was not protected by First Amendment. Accordingly, sheriff, who fired jailer on day following jailer's testimony, was entitled to qualified immunity on jailer's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim alleging violation of her free speech rights.
|
|||||
| McCool v. Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, Inc., No. 06-12660 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the survivors argued they were prepared at the Fed. R. Evid. 104 hearing but found their expert was experiencing memory lapses, but diligence was lacking in failing to produce evidence indicating his opinion was reliable, given that he had no experience in designing the tires made by the manufacturer, denying a continuance was upheld.
|
|||||
| Rasheed v. Smith, No. 06-14108 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, whose state court convictions included armed robbery, was properly denied § 2254 relief because the state court's analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, established law, since there was evidence that a codefendant took property from the victims' presence by use of a weapon.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez-Parra v. United States AG, No. 06-13954 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse discretion by denying motion to reopen, as evidence was essentially cumulative of that presented before IJ. One sworn statement mentioned that father had to leave Columbia because of membership with Liberal Party, but it appeared contents of statement could have been presented at initial removal hearing, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
|
|||||
| Romero v. Drummond Co., No. 06-13058, No. 06-13059,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In suit alleging that U.S. companies hired soldiers to kill union workers in Colombia, insufficient evidence supported criminal contempt sanction against plaintiffs' attorneys under 18 U.S.C.S. § 402 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 42; protective order banning extrajudicial comment on inadmissible information did not cover declarations attached to motions.
|
|||||
| Ru Cheng Zhang v. United States AG, No. 06-14709 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse discretion in dismissing appeal from denial of motion to reopen, as alien failed to present material evidence that was unavailable and could not have been discovered or presented at removal hearing, and alien had not been present in US for 10 years at time he was served with notice to appear, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b(b)(1).
|
|||||
| Rudisill v. United States, No. 05-12506 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's dismissal of a pro se federal inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion was vacated, and the case was reversed because the district court erred in finding that the inmate's ineffective assistance of counsel claim had been waived under the Rivera decision, and the claim had not been procedurally defaulted.
|
|||||
| Tao Lin v. United States AG, No. 06-14061 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notice of hearing was properly served upon alien, as Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sent notice by regular mail to last known address, which was address provided by alien when he was released from custody, INA § 239(c), 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229(c); alien was informed of obligation to provide correct address and to immediately notify DHS of changes.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. United States, No. 05-16970,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's denial of a pro se federal inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel was reversed because the inmate made the required showing that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to consult with him in any meaningful way about his right to appeal his disparate sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fajardo, No. 06-10695 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 168-month sentence for violating 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 1903(a), (g), and (j) (current versions at 46 U.S.C.S. §§ 70503(a) and 70506) and 21 U.S.C.S. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) was affirmed because the district court did not consider an impermissible factor, and the sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
