 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. United States, No. 07-2654,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a motorcycle rider collided with a utility pole located off the edge of a road between the road and a guardrail, the United States and a utility company were entitled to summary judgment as to the negligence claims because a town, and not the United States, controlled the road, and the accident was not reasonably foreseeable.
|
|||||
| Otero-Burgos v. Inter Am. Univ., No. 07-2501,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Professor's breach of contract claim was improperly dismissed where he was guaranteed the continuation of full-time employment until he either chose to retire or was properly dismissed for cause under the terms of his contract, and thus, he was not an employee hired "without a fixed term" within the meaning of P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 185a.
|
|||||
| Segarra-Miranda v. Acosta-Rivera (In re Acosta-Rivera), No. 07-2736,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The great divide in 11 U.S.C.S. § 521 was between required and not required information, and the BAPCPA allowed courts to do the sifting without rigid adherence to the 45 day deadline. Thus, the bankruptcy court's order excusing detailed disclosure by ordering the debtors to do "otherwise" under § 521(a)(1)(B) was within its discretion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hall, No. 07-1858,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not granted new trial on marijuana conspiracy and other charges, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), and 26 U.S.C.S. § 7201, because evidence defendant identified regarding witness's prior convictions was not material, but merely cumulative of impeachment evidence adduced at defendant's trial.
|
|||||
| Yeboah-Sefah v. Ficco, No. 07-2585,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a prisoner was convicted of murdering his child and assaulting a girlfriend, he was not entitled to habeas relief under § 2254, because Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance claims failed based on, inter alia, counsel's conflict of interest with a witness, failure to call a particular psychiatrist, and failure to challenge his statements.
|
|||||
| Uruci v. Holder, No. 07-2044,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 20, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported determination that husband's well-founded fear of persecution under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A) was rebutted by fundamental change in Albanian country conditions. IJ relied on more than a regime change, based the decision on husband's membership in Democratic Party, and did not ignore an Amnesty International Report.
|
|||||
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. |
