 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Douglas v. J.C. Penney Co., No. 06-1606,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly entered against employee on discrimination, harassment, and hostile work environment claims under Title VII and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B because employee's performance evaluations, based on objective criteria, were poor prior to allegations of race or gender bias. He failed to prove that his dismissal was pretextual.
|
|||||
| OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., No. 06-1993,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because policy language and case law favored the insured, and the insurance company had not shown that reducing aggregate coverage produced a result that was either fairer or closer to reasonable expectations, the holding that the insurance contract nowhere contemplated proration of the annual aggregate limit was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez Camacho v. Doral Fin. Corp. (In re Rodriguez Camacho), BAP NO. PR 06-013; Bankruptcy Case No. 04-13097 (SEK),
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The bankruptcy court erred in denying debtors' request for reconsideration and reinstatement of the automatic stay pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) on the basis that reconsideration was not available after the automatic stay was terminated because there was no all-embracing exclusion of orders lifting the automatic stay from reconsideration.
|
|||||
| Bishay v. Citizens Bank, No. 06-1364,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's dismissal of debtor's suit against bank was affirmed because debtor's objections to bank's action in drawing upon his letter of credit were precluded. Rather than advancing new basis for relief, they simply reproduced arguments earlier resolved by state court regarding scope of reservation clause in bankruptcy reorganization plan.
|
|||||
| De Jesus Aguilar v. Gonzales, No. 06-1215,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's decision to leave the U.S. for Guatemala before an IJ decided a motion he filed to reopen deportation proceedings constituted a withdrawal of his motion, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and a second IJ did not err when she denied a motion to reopen the original proceedings which alien filed after he reentered U.S. without inspection.
|
|||||
| De Jesus v. LTT Card Servs., No. 06-1907,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a district court could not have engaged in the Clackamas six-factor inquiry and concluded on summary judgment that two shareholder-directors were not "employees" to be counted in deciding if an employer was an "employer" under Title VII and the ADA, the entry of summary judgment in the employer's favor was vacated.
|
|||||
| Josselyn v. Dennehy, No. 05-2405,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of the inmate's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 for failure to exhaust was affirmed where the inmate had not exhausted the closing argument claims that were not included in the application for leave to obtain further appellate review and the inmate had not shown good cause for failing to exhaust his claims in state court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Leahy, No. 05-1670,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), was affirmed because, as proof of the justification defense did not negate an element of the charged crime, the burden of proof in connection with that defense rested with defendant. Justification included self-defense.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
