 |
|
 |
|
|
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. DeCicco, No. 05-1645,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An indictment for use of fire to commit a felony and mail fraud was not constructively amended during trial after judgment for acquittal on the use of fire charges was entered because the indictment contained two theories, including that the defendant submitted fraudulent claims for insurance proceeds after the fire, however it may have started.
|
|||||
| Waterproofing Sys. v. Hydro-Stop, Inc., No. 05-1631,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A manufacturer was properly enjoined from terminating its exclusive distribution agreement with a distributor under the Puerto Rico Dealers Act, Law 75 of June 24, 1964, 10 P.R. Laws Ann. §§ 278-278d. The district court's decision, that the distributor's failure to pay timely was not just cause for termination, was not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Cipes v. Mikasa, Inc., No. 05-2402,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because all the issues that were initially raised in defendant's briefs and were later waived by defendant at oral argument, save for one, were both procedurally defaulted and substantially weak, the court accepted the waiver and addressed only the claim of error about a jury note; however, the jury not claim was also procedurally barred.
|
|||||
| Furr v. Brady, No. 05-1159,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was not entitled to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 relief, because (1) the introduction of a non-testifying co-defendant's statement, used to show that the inmate knew of the statement, did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and (2) the ruling that his prior juvenile adjudications qualified as "convictions" did not violate due process.
|
|||||
| Susanto v. Gonzales, No. 04-2683,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ's denial of asylum was supported by substantial evidence that the threats against the aliens, Chinese Christians in Indonesia, the bombing of their church, and the vandalizing of their home after riots did not rise to past persecution and that, based on state department reports, the prospect of future persecution was small.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jimenez-Beltre, No. 05-1268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range was reasonable because the district court permissibly disregarded time spent in state custody on a new charge and declined to impose a lower sentence to avoid the sentencing disparity between districts that did and did not fast-track the sentencing of illegally re-entering aliens.
|
|||||
| Osorno v. Gonzales, No. 05-1279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying an alien's motion to reconsider its order affirming the denial of asylum because the motion was an attempt to attack the IJ's underlying decision to deny relief, did not present additional legal arguments but reiterated those made in an earlier appeal to the BIA, and did not identify a change of law.
|
|||||
| Perez-Cordero v. Wal-Mart P.R., No. 05-1255,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the district court held in abeyance the employee's motion to extend the deadline for the summary judgment opposition, but treated the employer's summary judgment motion as unopposed, the opposition should have been considered because counsel's reasonably expected that her request for an extension had been or soon would be granted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
