 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| River St. Donuts, LLC v. Napolitano, No. 07-2504,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the administrative appeals office (AAO) proffered a rational reason for its reversal in policy and because it consistently applied that policy since 2003, the court saw no reason to interfere with the AAO's change of policy regarding depreciation and its denial of the company's employment based visa application under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1153(b)(3).
|
|||||
| United States v. Fanfan, No. 08-2062,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a federal court had authority to resentence defendant under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3582(c)(2) as his guideline range was lowered per 28 U.S.C.S. § 994(o), denial of reconsideration of the new sentence within the amended range was upheld as U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) did not allow a reduction below the minimum of that range.
|
|||||
| Martex Farms, S.E. v. United States EPA, No. 08-1311,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 5, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where commercial farm was found to have violated the FIFRA, 7 U.S.C.S. § 136 et seq., the findings were upheld under 7 U.S.C.S. § 136n(b); inter alia, while it complained that it was deprived of a full and fair opportunity to present its case, it received a five-day hearing, presented numerous motions, and presented 657 pages to the federal court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Alberico, No. 06-1502,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 5, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on her argument that the statute of limitations barred her money laundering conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1956 because the failure to file and report capital gains was directly relevant to the conspiracy, and thus, it affected the statute of limitations calculus.
|
|||||
| United States v. Upton, No. 05-1593,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 5, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant deliberately chose not to request a statute of limitations jury instruction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 30(a) at the charge conference as a matter of trial strategy. The informed decision to decline to exercise the right to request a specific jury instruction was a straightforward example of an intentional relinquishment subject to waiver.
|
|||||
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. |
