 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Monteagudo v. Asociacion de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado, No. 07-2341,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 26, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee--subjected to sexual harassment in violation of Title VII and P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, §§ 146, 155, and 1321--was entitled to $ 333,000 in compensatory damages because jury's award was neither grossly excessive nor exaggeratedly high, and employee suffered from depression and sleeplessness. Challenge to punitive damages was not preserved.
|
|||||
| United States v. Marceau, No. 08-1011,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 26, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence to the ten year maximum was reasonable, where the court expressly applied the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, and enhancements under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1, and as a "prohibited person" as defined under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922, given his admitted drug habit and his intent to sell stolen guns for drug money.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., Nos. 06-2705, 06-2706,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 28, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After Maine Supreme Judicial Court's answer to certified questions, diversity case was remanded only for modification of damages awarded for death of a forklift driver because dominant issue--whether manufacturer had a post-sale duty to warn--was properly addressed in widow's favor. Facts permitted recovery under straightforward negligence theory.
|
|||||
| Bunch v. W.R. Grace & Co., No. 08-1406,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 29, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer and delegated fiduciary were appropriately granted summary judgment on participants' breach of fiduciary duty claim because divestment of employer's stock held by plan met prudent man standard in 29 U.S.C.S. § 1104(a)(1)(B) when fiduciary correctly considered totality of circumstances, including market price, in valuing stock.
|
|||||
| Muskat v. United States, No. 08-1513,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 29, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the taxpayer failed to put the IRS on notice during the administrative phase of his claim for a refund of self-employment tax, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over that claim. Since the district court lacked jurisdiction over the taxpayer's claim, the taxpayer's proposed amendment would have been utterly futile.
|
|||||
| United States v. King, No. 07-2084,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 29, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of possession and brandishing of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and the same offense without brandishing, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii), but he should not have had separate convictions and sentences on both counts, his case was remanded because one count was vacated.
|
|||||
| Lichoulas v. City of Lowell, Nos. 08-1485, 08-2023,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, January 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prospect that FERC would revoke a license for a hydroelectric project made clear that any federal interest, such as it was, would likely be mooted, and any objection to the taking of the land where the project was located, or deficiency in adequate compensation, could be and preferably was to be done in state proceedings.
|
|||||
| King v. Rivas, No. 08-1557,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 2, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a detainee rejected an offer of settlement from correctional employees but only recovered less than the offer from a single correctional officer, the officer was entitled to cost-shifting relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 since apportionment of the offer was not required and the package offer was simply compared to the total recovery package.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lewis, No. 07-1462,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 2, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's denial of defendant's motion for acquittal was affirmed where the plain language of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252(a)(2) required that the government prove actual interstate transmission or shipment of the images, and the government proved interstate transmission occurred where it introduced evidence that defendant used the Internet.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Dickhaut, No. 08-1795,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 5, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition was properly denied because state court decision finding identification procedure proper did not result in unreasonable application of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Witness's prior action, finding no suspect in eight prior photo arrays, supported conclusion that she resisted any suggestiveness inherent in a photo array.
|
|||||
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. |
