 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| DeMayo v. Nugent, No. 07-1623,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity was reversed because district court erred in its analysis of whether the right that troopers violated was clearly established. Troopers were on notice that, under the Fourth Amendment, they needed either a warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances in order to make a lawful entry into a home.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lewis, No. 07-1249,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In prosecution for false statements in firearm applications, denial of defendant's motion for discovery in aid of selective prosecution theory was proper because the district court properly configured the pool of similarly situated offenders with reference to the nature and numerosity of their offenses and incidence of possible links to terrorism.
|
|||||
| Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., No. 07-1860,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IEP was proper because school district and state educational agency fulfilled their responsibilities under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C.S. §§ 1400-1491, delays complained of in finalizing the IEP were attributable to the parents and, thus, afforded no grounds for relief, and the IEP at issue satisfied the applicable statutory imperatives.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cardona-Sandoval, No. 07-1748,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion for return of his property, including personal articles, was vacated as the Government's response made no reference to any of the property specifically identified in defendant's request and it provided no information as to how or when defendant was notified that his property would be destroyed.
|
|||||
| Muniz v. Sabol, Nos. 06-2692, 06-2693,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As individualized consideration of the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3621(b) factors was directed at the overall placement decision, and as the question of the appropriateness of halfway house placement for inmates during the first 90 percent of their sentences was a generally applicable issue, 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20-21 were a reasonable exercise of the BOP's duties.
|
|||||
| Sch. Union No. 37 v. Ms. C., No. 06-2261,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a school union sued under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C.S. §§ 1400-1490, per 20 U.S.C.S. § 1415(i)(2)(B) after a mother and son were reimbursed per Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 20-A, §§ 5203.4, 5204.4, 5804, 5805 for room, board, and transportation costs for the son's out-of-state education, judgment in its favor was proper as the suit was barred by laches.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pridgen, No. 06-2595,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 29, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred during defendants trial on a charge alleging that he was a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), when it excluded evidence that a Government witness gave a different description of defendant when she was interviewed by a defense investigator. However, the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ward, No. 06-2354,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 29, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Record of the state proceedings included the affirmative showing required by the United States Supreme Court in Boykin that defendant's plea was entered voluntarily. Given that showing, the district court was entitled to impose a sentence that included the statutory enhancement under 21 U.S.C.S. § 851(b)(1)(A).
|
|||||
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. |
