 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andujar v. Rodriguez, No. 05-17162,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Paramedics were entitled to qualified immunity as to arrestee's U.S. Const. amend. XIV claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; that arrestee did not receive stitches until two hours after police dog bit him because paramedics treated the wounds and released him to police for booking did not constitute deliberate indifference.
|
|||||
| Duvall Chems., Inc. v. Osterman & Co., No. 06-12475,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied appellant's motion to amend because it was filed after deadline prescribed in scheduling order, without any explanation for its tardiness. Summary judgment was properly granted to appellee on appellant's fraud and deceit claims because appellant failed to offer evidence as to falsity of appellee's misrepresentations.
|
|||||
| Grissett v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 06-13218 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an inmate argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to support a motion for a judgment of acquittal with case law, because it was fair to assume the government would have distinguished the facts or raised contrary caselaw, it did not lead to a certain result based on the facts, thus, the denial of habeas relief was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Lopez v. United States AG, No. 06-14249 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioners were properly denied asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158 because they failed to show refugee status under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A) in that they did not establish past persecution due to political opinion; traveling and then returning to Colombia several times was inconsistent with past persecution and no corroborative evidence was shown.
|
|||||
| Mathews v. Crosby, No. 05-12515,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred by dismissing inmate's § 1983 suit against a state prison warden, as a genuine issue of disputed fact existed as to whether, as a supervisor, he knew that violent guards often attacked inmates in violation of Eighth Amendment; inter alia, a predecessor warden warned that certain guards were so abusive they "might kill" inmates.
|
|||||
| Riley v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., No. 06-12311 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff abandoned federal law claims at early stage of case because her second amended complaint--which superseded her previous complaints--raised only state law claims; for this reason, district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367, over state law claims.
|
|||||
| Simmons v. Edmondson, No. 06-15755 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's sua sponte dismissal of a pro se federal inmate's Bivens civil rights case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a claim was affirmed because the appellees were all federal judges who were entitled to absolute immunity from the inmate's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
|
|||||
| Torres v. United States AG, No. 06-13609 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Harassment that alien endured when rebel group members hit alien, briefly kidnapped him, and made threatening phone calls to him did not rise to level of torture required for CAT relief, and alien failed to prove that Colombian government acquiesced in group's activities, as that government had made efforts to combat the group's illegal activities.
|
|||||
| Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., No. 05-16456,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Excess insurer waived "no-action" and "legally obligated to pay" clauses because it chose not to participate in settlement negotiations between insured, insurers, and workers who sued insured after being injured in accident at job site to which insured had sent them. Cross-suit clause did not preclude coverage, as it conflicted with rest of policy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lee, No. 06-13011 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 24-month sentence upon a revocation of her supervised release was proper under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583 because the sentence was within the statutory maximum for her underlying Class C drug felony under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) and 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(e) and thus, did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
