 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chmielinski v. Mass. Office of the Comm'r of Prob., No. 07-1652,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probation officer's termination for abuse of office did not violate his procedural due process rights because although he argued that he had no meaningful opportunity to respond since he was not provided pre-hearing discovery, the impediment placed on his ability to investigate was outweighed by the interests in protecting those who complained.
|
|||||
| Miranda v. Doral Fin. Corp. (In re Marrero), BAP NO. PR 07-039, PR 07-040,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finance company's mortgage on a Chapter 7 debtor's residence was avoidable under 11 U.S.C.S. § 549 because the company replaced mortgages it acquired before the debtor declared bankruptcy with a new mortgage after the debtor declared bankruptcy, without informing the trustee or obtaining the bankruptcy court's permission.
|
|||||
| Pasquina v. Cunningham (In re Cunningham), No. 06-2786,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A bankruptcy court properly decided that a postpetition sale of a debtor's home, for which he had obtained a homestead exemption under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 188, § 1, did not cause the sale proceeds to lose their exempt status and become subject to a pre-petition debt because such would be at odds with the immunizing effect of 11 U.S.C.S. § 522(c).
|
|||||
| Alexander v. Brigham & Women's Physicians Org., Inc., No. 07-1443,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 23, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deferred compensation plans were valid top-hat plans under ERISA because the plans catered to a select group of highly compensated employees and the applicability of the top-hat exemption did not hinge on an implicit requirement that affected employees possess individual bargaining power.
|
|||||
| Larson v. Howell (In re Larson), No. 07-1925,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 23, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that the debtor was criminally liable for the state crime of negligent homicide qualified as a "criminal act" which capped the debtor's homestead exemption to $ 125,000 under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-8, § 322(a), 119 Stat. 23, 97 (codified at 11 U.S.C.S. § 522(q)(1)(B)(iv)).
|
|||||
| Foxworth v. Maloney, No. 06-2379,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the district court found a Sixth Amendment violation and ordered the retrial of a habeas petitioner in state court, but did not decide the petitioner's insufficiency of the evidence claim, a remand to the district court to consider the insufficiency claim was warranted because that claim, if well-founded, would yield greater relief.
|
|||||
| Hem v. Mukasey, No. 07-1775,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the aliens' testimony was neither consistent, nor sufficiently detailed to provide a plausible account of the basis of their fear of past political persecution or a well founded fear of future persecution the IJ properly found that neither alien testified credibly, and thus, did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158.
|
|||||
| Jorgji v. Mukasey, No. 07-1571,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aliens' petition for review of the BIA's denial of their asylum applications was affirmed where they failed to establish a well-founded fear of future political persecution under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158 since all of the incidents specifically described by the aliens were well in the past and the regime that fostered them had long since been supplanted.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dickerson, No. 06-2471,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Life sentence under 21 U.S.C.S. § 851 was affirmed because requisite drug quantities and types were both charged in the indictment and found by the jury. A verdict slip expressly sought the jury's determination about the quantities of cocaine base involved. Defendant was foreclosed by § 851(e) from challenging prior convictions, due to their age.
|
|||||
| Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., Nos. 07-1396, 07-1506,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where fishermen worked under lay share contracts contravening 46 U.S.C.S. § 10601, a trial court, in applying the doctrine of laches, correctly chose R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-14-20 as the most analogous statute of limitations and barred claims older than three years as § 28-14-20 covered wages and comported with the hospitable view taken toward seaman.
|
|||||
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. |
