 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Smith, No. 05-2350,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A certificate of appealability to challenge the dismissal of a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 as untimely was denied because a conviction became final for purposes of triggering the one-year limitations period of § 2255 when certiorari was denied, regardless of whether a petition for rehearing was filed or when such a petition was denied.
|
|||||
| Shelby v. Superformance Int'l, Inc., No. 05-1307,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal from a partial summary judgment order in a trademark case was moot because a settlement resolved all of the controverted issues between two parties; a vacatur was not appropriate either because there was a presumption that the judgment should have remained intact due to the settlement.
|
|||||
| United States v. Boulais, No. 04-1750,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed where Booker did not apply because defendant's sentence was imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act, not USSG, defendant admitted that he had no factual basis for challenging the prior convictions listed in presentence report, and district court's use of presentence report raised no Confrontation Clause issue.
|
|||||
| United States v. O'Brien, No. 04-2447,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if a prosecutor's questioning about defendant's failure to shift the blame for a computer crime to his brother was improper under due process, it was not reversible under the plain error standard because the outcome of the case was not more than likely altered since the evidence showed that defendant had motive and opportunity.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ramos-Acevedo, No. 04-2520,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where magistrate who conducted hearing on suppression motion found that customs agent did not reach into defendant's pocket, and defendant did not object to finding in challenging report and recommendation, defendant irretrievably waived any right to review of finding and circumstances did not call for intervention under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
|
|||||
| Z & B Enters. v. Tastee-Freez Int'l, Inc., No. 05-1064,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Franchisees' lawsuit against a franchisor was dismissed for failure to join indispensable parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b) because a judgment in the absence of the non-parties could have been prejudicial to the franchisor, relief could not be shaped to avoid the prejudice, and a judgment in the absence of the parties was unlikely to be adequate.
|
|||||
| Pramco, LLC v. San Juan Bay Marina, Inc., No. 04-1410,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the appellate court could not determine whether diversity jurisdiction existed, it remanded to the district court to make that determination. If diversity did exist, the district court had to conduct appropriate proceedings to decide whether defendant defaulted under a settlement agreement between plaintiff and defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pacheco, No. 04-1882,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was vacated and a retrial ordered because the district court denied the defendant a fair trial when it partially directed a verdict at the close of evidence then allowed the entire case to go to the jury without limitation and without notice to defense counsel that there would be no narrowing of the scope of the charge.
|
|||||
| United States v. Panico, No. 04-2099,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for collection of a debt by extortionate means pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 894 was affirmed because the identification of defendant's voice on tape recordings did not violate due process where the troopers had heard defendant's voice before and there was no indication that either trooper had any incentive to misrepresent.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
