 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Morelli v. Webster, No. 08-1759,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 7, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial in ¿ 1983 action was required as to excessive force claim because, applying facts in light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that use of force sufficient to tear rotator cuff to detain plaintiff--unresisting woman who, at worst, was suspected of stealing $20--was so disproportionate as to offend the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Stewart v. Astrue, No. 08-1386,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 7, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a claimant challenged the denial of an alleged application for Social Security disability benefits and a remand order was entered, the order of remand should have been vacated once the Commissioner of Social Security filed a motion to alter or amend because the motion raised a genuine dispute regarding the application's existence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tobin, No. 08-1340,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 7, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly acquitted of charge under 47 U.S.C.S. ¿ 223(a)(1)(D) because the statute required a specific purpose to cause emotional upset in a person at the telephone number called. Reading the statute to require a "purpose" to harass solved the problem that there was nothing inherently wicked or even suspect about multiple phone calls.
|
|||||
| McCarthy v. Mukasey, No. 08-1649,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 9, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of an order of removal because of his conviction was denied because alien's conviction for possessing with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. ¿ 841(a)(1)--for which he received a 121-month prison term--satisfied prerequisites in 8 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1101(a)(43)(B), and so constituted an aggravated felony.
|
|||||
| United States v. Graham, No. 07-2299,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 9, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where officers entered an apartment to execute an arrest warrant, arrested defendant, and searched the apartment, his motion to suppress was properly denied under the Fourth Amendment because officers had a reasonable belief that he resided in the apartment, and the search was valid since his expectation of privacy was greatly diminished.
|
|||||
| United States v. Olivero, No. 07-1587,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 9, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there were only competing interpretations of what the conversations regarding the load of cocaine meant, and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A) was explicit that the court could accept any undisputed portion of the PSR as a finding of fact, the court did not clearly err in finding that defendant played a significant role in the transaction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
