 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lorenz v. Am. Educ. Services/Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency (In re Lorenz), BAP NO. MW 05-031,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A bankruptcy debtor's student loan was improperly discharged based on undue hardship under 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(8), since no consideration was given to the income and expenses of the debtor's domestic partner who was a part of the debtor's household, assumed the role of a spouse, and substantially subsidized the debtor's lifestyle.
|
|||||
| Elkin v. Shkolnikov (In re Shkolnikov), BAP NO. MB 05-038,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellants sought to buy a bankruptcy debtor's rights to pursue bad faith claims against the debtor's insurer, appellants lacked standing to appeal the denial of a motion for the sale since appellants were assigned such rights in an order of relief from the bankruptcy stay and thus appellants were not aggrieved by denial of the sale order.
|
|||||
| Grande v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 05-1734,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment as a matter of law for the insurance company was not justified since the insured's cousin testified that he never intended to possess or operate the sailboat, and the insured said that he owned the sailboat, owing the cousin the purchase price, and it was not clear why that arrangement affected the insurance company's risk assessment.
|
|||||
| Quinones v. Houser Buick, No. 05-2246,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an ex-employee of Puerto Rican origin claimed under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, §§ 1-10, that a white co-worker made substantially more, summary judgment was properly granted to the employer because the employee offered no evidence that the employer's explanation of the pay difference was pretextual.
|
|||||
| Vieques Air Link, Inc. v. United States DOL, No. 05-1278,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer violated Section 519 of the Wendell H. Ford Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century when it suspended, transferred, and terminated employee, pilot, who complained to FAA and employer that employer failed to determine weight aboard planes before flying; evidence showed that the employer knew of complaints prior to making decisions.
|
|||||
| Borges Colon v. Roman-Abreu, No. 04-1221,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former career city employees were properly awarded compensatory and punitive damages in their First Amendment political discrimination action under § 1983 against the newly elected city mayor and a newly appointed city official, who orchestrated the firing of the employees because of the employees' ties to the opposition political party.
|
|||||
| Palmieri v. Nynex Long Distance Co., No. 05-1753,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A salesman's claim, that he was owed overtime pay under state law because his employer forced him to handle additional service matters that required him to stay in the office, was properly rejected because the company did not substantially control his hours and places of work for purposes of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 26, § 663(3)(C).
|
|||||
| Platten v. HG Berm. Exempted Ltd., No. 05-1832,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case alleging breach of contract relating to a failure to pay termination distributions, several subsidiaries were not held liable under the theory of disregarding the corporate entity because it was only utilized in rare situations, and there was no evidence that several partners were confused about which entity they contracted with.
|
|||||
| Miles v. Beneficial Massachusetts, Inc.(In re Miles), No. 05-1892,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The reimposition of the automatic stay pending the completion of adversary proceedings to determine the validity of a mortgage was affirmed because the circumstances had materially changed after the bankruptcy court granted a creditor relief from the stay, where the bankruptcy court's order was based on the assumption that the mortgage was valid.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
