 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mendez-Matos v. Municipality of Guaynabo, Nos. 07-2303, 07-2304, 07-2305, 07-2433,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 24, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Punitive damages award to the supervisor under ¿ 1983 of no more than $ 35,000 was permissible because that award adequately reflected the degree of reprehensibility of the mayor's conduct, and given the adequacy of the jury's compensatory damages award, there was no justification for a great disparity between the compensatory and punitive awards.
|
|||||
| Pan Am. Grain Co. v. NLRB, No. 08-1351,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 24, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: NLRB complied with remand and clarified its reasoning such that its finding that employer violated NLRA, 29 U.S.C.S. ¿ 151 et seq., and its subsequent remedial order were justified; as employer did not show it would have implemented a layoff solely as result of modernization and even in absence of economic reasons, it had duty to bargain decision.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dessesaure, No. 08-1029,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 24, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an indictment against defendant for drug and firearm crimes under 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 922, 924, and 21 U.S.C.S. ¿ 841 was dismissed with prejudice based on Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 3161, violations under 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 3162, the order was reversed for dismissal sans prejudice as crimes were serious and he showed no prejudice for later trial.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez-Lozada, Nos. 06-1988, 06-2004, 06-2336, 06-2337,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 24, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving multiple drug and gun charges, conviction and sentence on charge that defendant was a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 922(g)(1) was vacated because there was an absence of evidence that defendant knowingly possessed the guns found in second defendant's bedroom, either actually or constructively.
|
|||||
| Del Gallo v. Roger, No. 08-1511,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 25, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where postal employees barred an election candidate from soliciting signatures on a post office sidewalk pursuant to 39 C.F.R. ¿ 232.1(h), the First Amendment was not violated, because, inter alia, the post office sidewalk was a non-public forum, not a traditional public forum, and the regulation was viewpoint neutral and reasonable.
|
|||||
| Mejia-Rodriguez v. Holder, No. 08-1442,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 25, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a permanent lawful resident who was convicted of felonies left the country and was then found inadmissible when he applied for re-entry, his Equal Protection argument failed because 8 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), not 8 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), was relevant, and he was not similarly situated to a resident who never left the country.
|
|||||
| Nadal-Ginard v. Holder, No. 08-1550,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 25, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Repeal of relief under 8 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1182(c) did not have an impermissible retroactive effect where application of the new statutory limitations on discretionary relief did not have an impermissible retroactive effect on those aliens who would have been eligible for discretionary relief when they were convicted of a felony after trial.
|
|||||
| Scatambuli v. Holder, No. 08-1584,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 25, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioners from Brazil alleged fear of persecution for their status as government informants, the application for asylum and withholding of removal was properly denied under the INA because social visibility was relevant to the particular social group analysis and substantial evidence supported the finding that they lacked social visibility.
|
|||||
| United States v. Perez-Cruz, No. 08-1834,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, February 25, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 3582(c)(2) motion was properly denied because, though he argued that U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual app. C, amend. 715 should apply to reduce his sentences under 21 U.S.C.S. ¿ 841(a)(1) and 846, he did not invoke the argument in the federal district court and thus the argument was forfeited.
|
|||||
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. |
