 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Luisi, No. 03-1470,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions on drug-related charges were vacated because supplemental instructions foreclosed the jury from considering a crime boss's role in the asserted government entrapment of defendant, a crime family member. A properly instructed jury could have concluded that the government was responsible for boss's order to defendant to set up drug crime.
|
|||||
| United States v. Materas, No. 06-1920,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing where even if he could have proven that the police intentionally misrepresented that he lived at the address, the affidavit described a controlled buy that took place two days earlier at the same address involving defendant, and the buy alone provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pena-Hernandez, No. 06-1596,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim that he was entitled to a safety-valve debriefing before his resentencing was barred by the law of the case doctrine; even if the argument was not waived, it was forfeited and subject to plain error review, and it was hardly "plain" that the government had a duty to give a defendant multiple debriefing opportunities.
|
|||||
| Asociacion de Educacion Privada de P.R., Inc. v. Garcia-Padilla, No. 06-1146,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals upheld district court's judgment finding that 2004 P.R. Laws 116 imposed restraints on private schools' right to academic freedom, and that P.R. Comm. Dep't, Publ'n Info. Sale & Distrib. Textbooks Regs. No. 6458, § 11 was unconstitutional to the extent it gave parents the option of purchasing old editions of assigned textbooks.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fairway Capital Corp., No. 06-2023,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 15 U.S.C.S. § 687c gave district court power to place Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) into receivership and to resolve issues pertaining to receivership, and it did not err when it denied Government of Virgin Islands' (GVI's) request that it abstain from ruling on GVI's claim that it was entitled to possession of timeshare units SBIC held.
|
|||||
| Zareas v. Bared-San Martin, No. 06-1986,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on the decision in a prior action against the same defendants regarding an interest in the same property at issue in both actions, the court applied principles of res judicata in concluding that it could not entertain plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff should have raised her fraud theory in her original federal complaint.
|
|||||
| Owens v. United States, Nos. 05-1784, 05-1785,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred when it dismissed defendant's petition for habeas relief without holding evidentiary hearing on defendant's claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel did not tell him he had right to testify, and right to a public trial because trial court excluded his family from courtroom during jury selection.
|
|||||
| Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, Nos. 06-1127, 06-1358,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Maine Human Rights Commission had authority to pursue claims filed by former employees, who lost their jobs with the Aroostook Band of Micmacs allegedly because the Band violated their rights under the Maine Human Rights Act and the Maine Whistleblowers' Protection Act, because 25 U.S.C.S. § 1725(a) made the Band subject to Maine law.
|
|||||
| Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians v. Ryan, No. 06-1774,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A tribe's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were foreclosed by the decision, issued that same day, in Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan, which held that the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980, 25 U.S.C.S. §§ 1721-1735, allowed Maine to enforce its employment discrimination laws against Maine tribes.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
