 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Buck v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 06-1625,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consumer protection provisions of the ADA, 49 U.S.C.S. § 41707 did not permit the imputation of a private right of action against an airline and thus the individuals did not have an implied right of action under 14 C.F.R. § 253.4 or § 253.7. Moreover, the individuals' attempt to invoke state remedies violated the ADA's preemption provision.
|
|||||
| United States v. Shoup, No. 04-2542,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) was affirmed because the court's admission of audiotape and transcript of 911 call was not plain error. Call made shortly after caller was threatened satisfied both the "excited utterance" and "present sense impression" exceptions to the hearsay rule under Fed. R. Evid. 803(1) and (2).
|
|||||
| Gomez-Perez v. Potter, No. 06-1614,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's judgment dismissing a lawsuit that a postal service employee filed against the U.S. Postmaster General and USPS was affirmed because the employee claimed she was subjected to illegal retaliation after she filed a complaint alleging age discrimination, and 29 U.S.C.S. § 633a did not allow federal employees to sue for retaliation.
|
|||||
| Locke v. Cattell, No. 05-1251,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of inmate's habeas petition was affirmed because, under "unreasonable application" clause of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(d)(1), state court's decision that inmate was not in custody at any point during a police interview, even though he admitted to a robbery during the interview, was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
|
|||||
| Negron-Torres v. Verizon Communs., Inc., No. 06-1147,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of diversity action against parent company for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), was affirmed because parent company's own contacts with Puerto Rico were insufficient, and district court could not assert general jurisdiction over parent company by virtue of its indirect ownership of a telephone company.
|
|||||
| Balaguer-Santiago v. Echegoyen, No. 06-1281,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment against public employees, in 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action claiming that they were discriminated against on basis of political affiliation in violation of the First Amendment, was affirmed because they failed to overcome defense that officials closed office and failed to renew contracts for a nondiscriminatory reason--to save money.
|
|||||
| Wetmore v. MacDonald, Page, Schatz, Fletcher & Co., LLC, No. 06-2103,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of complaint claiming that an accounting firm committed professional negligence, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation when it appraised a business was reversed because causation was alleged. Protections afforded by buy-sell provisions that set a bidding floor relied on an accurate initial valuation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
