 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Oliveras Lopez de Victoria, Nos. 08-1879; 08-8040,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney was indefinitely suspended in state court for violations of P.R. R. Prof. Resp. 35 and 38, and reciprocal discipline was imposed in federal court, there was no reason to impose a lesser discipline because there was no denial of due process, he admitted misconduct, and only later claimed his signature was forged.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vargas, No. 08-1377,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentencing court's assessment of defendant's role and its finding that defendant was not entitled to a minor role adjustment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 was not clearly erroneous since it viewed defendant's participation as a whole and concluded that his role was not minor when compared to other couriers.
|
|||||
| Emplrs. Reinsurance Corp. v. Globe Newspaper Co., No. 08-1733,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In declaratory judgment action between newspaper and its insurer, known loss doctrine did not apply because an article which was partial basis of state court suit against newspaper was published after policy was purchased. Although loss may have been likely, it was not substantially certain or known by newspaper to be so when policy was obtained.
|
|||||
| Levesque v. Doocy, No. 08-1814,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a news network and co-hosts reported as true fabricated quotations attributed to a school superintendent, they were entitled to First Amendment protection regarding his libel claim because he was a public figure and could not show actual malice since, inter alia, defendants authenticated the incident and various reported facts.
|
|||||
| Situation Mgmt. Sys. v. ASP Consulting LLC, Nos. 08-1543; 08-1585,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's error in determining which aspects of the company's works were subject to copyright protection under 17 U.S.C.S. § 102 prevented it from meaningfully analyzing the similarities between the company and the competitor's works, caused prejudice, and required reversal of the district court's finding of non-infringement.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ahrendt, No. 06-1254,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's cocaine conspiracy conviction was remanded for resentencing because, although the district court was not obligated to modify defendant's sentence, court thought it prudent to allow district court opportunity to consider Sentencing Commission's updated views, as expressed in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, app. C, amend. 709 (2007).
|
|||||
| United States v. Santiago, No. 07-1575, No. 07-1718, No. 07-1728, No. 07-2017,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, March 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendants objected to an undercover agent's testimony at trial as to the meaning of code words or phrases used by defendants to designate drug quantities, the agent's testimony was properly admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 701, which was meant to admit testimony based on the lay expertise a witness personally acquired through experience.
|
|||||
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. |
