 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| United States v. Misla-Aldarondo, No. 03-2073, No. 04-1424,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for conspiring to launder proceeds of extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(3)(A) & (B), and (h), was affirmed because defendant's attempt to conceal source of money before it actually came into his possession could not relieve him of criminal liability. Future assets could be forfeited under a money judgment.
|
|||||
| Colon-Jimenez v. GR Mgmt. Corp., No. 06-1871,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disabled tenants' request to transfer to another apartment was not sufficiently specific and direct to constitute a request for accommodation, and a request to avoid noise did not represent even-handed treatment, as required by the Fair Housing Act, but an action that would have given the tenants a greater opportunity than nonhandicapped persons.
|
|||||
| Hudson Sav. Bank v. Austin, No. 06-2043,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of interpleader action was reversed where the Eleventh Amendment would not have been offended by allowing a federal court to determine the relative priority of the federal and state tax liens. Only the bank's claim for relief that would have bound the Commonwealth gave rise to potential Eleventh Amendment concerns, and had to be reserved.
|
|||||
| Mr. I. v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, Nos. 06-1368 and 06-1422,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In finding that a child with Asperger's Syndrome qualified for IDEA services, a district court applied the correct standard for determining eligibility and it correctly ruled that any negative impact on a child qualified as an adverse effect. There was no abuse of discretion in denying parents' claims for reimbursement and compensatory education.
|
|||||
| Jennings v. Jones, No. 05-2522,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officer was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity because officer's use of increased force--breaking arrestee's ankle--after arrestee ceased resisting violated the Fourth Amendment, law was clearly established, and reasonable officer in same circumstances would have believed that his conduct was a violation.
|
|||||
| Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Riso, Inc., No. 06-1857,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment in favor of insurers was affirmed because the court agreed that there was no duty to defend, or indemnify, a complaint (a garden-variety antitrust suit) brought by underlying plaintiffs who suffered no reputational injury and whose allegations of disparagement concerned anticompetitive conduct directed against others.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gilman, No. 06-1376,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence did not amount to plain error where although the district court did not identify the reason that it imposed a sentence in the middle of the guideline range in direct violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(c)(1), remanding the case to the district court for resentencing would not have in any way altered defendant's sentence.
|
|||||
| Rossello-Gonzalez v. Acevedo-Vila, Nos. 06-1448, 06-1449, 06-1450,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Vacation on appeal of injunctive relief and dismissal of all claims precluded plaintiffs from being "prevailing parties" under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988(b). The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the action was not frivolous and in denying defendants fees. Finally, defendants were not entitled to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1927 sanctions.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
