 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alstom Caribe, Inc. v. Geo. P. Reintjes Co., No. 06-2386,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred when it allowed a party to pay $ 2 million into the court's registry, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 67, and then transferred that money to the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Missouri because the transfer was unaccompanied by a shifting of the case or a cause of action within the case.
|
|||||
| Freadman v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 06-1486,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment against employee on ADA disparate treatment claim under was affirmed because employee did not muster enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that employer's stated reason for her job rotation was pretextual. A manager lost confidence in the employee due to her unsatisfactory presentation to a meeting of company officers.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pierre, No. 05-2309,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction on a drug conspiracy count was affirmed, in part, because the district court did not constructively amend the indictment. Plain language of the indictment encompassed an incident and activities that defendant claimed were outside of its scope. It did not limit the charged conspiracy to defendant's drug sales to a gang.
|
|||||
| Alsamhouri v. Gonzales, No. 05-2800,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the IJ's amply supported findings that the alien understood the filing deadline and yet failed to diligently proceed with the application, the denial of the alien's request for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252. Thus, the BIA's decision was affirmed and the alien's petition for review was denied.
|
|||||
| Raza v. Gonzales, No. 06-1672,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA properly denied an alien's motion to reopen a removal proceeding on numerical and temporal grounds, and judicial review was denied. The alien, a Pakistani national, failed to meet the requirements for an exception to the numerical and temporal limitations, i.e., he failed to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for relief.
|
|||||
| Santos-Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., No. 06-1769,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of home owners' TILA action was affirmed because lenders' disclosure correctly stated that rescission of refinance loan would cancel security interest contemplated by that loan, and would impact only refinance transaction. Lenders satisfactorily disclosed effects of rescission as required by 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(d).
|
|||||
| TLT Constr. Corp. v. RI, Inc., No. 06-2214,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 in favor of general contractor in its suit against subcontractor for breach of contract was reversed because no binding contract, in form of final written agreement, was formed. Despite lengthy negotiations, the issues of insurance limits, permits and fees, and timing of shop drawings remained unresolved.
|
|||||
| Ruiz-Rosa v. Rullan, No. 06-1761,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court abused its discretion by dismissing a case as a sanction for noncompliance with its order since the order required more than was necessary to satisfy the pleading standard and the amended complaint was not deficient. Summary judgment was properly granted on claims of deliberate indifference to a detainee's medical needs.
|
|||||
| Torres-Martinez v. P.R. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-1881,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee failed to establish a prima facie case of First Amendment political discrimination because she suffered no adverse employment action--being deprived of some of her work duties did not suffice; also, the allegedly taking away job duties did not deprive her of a property interest, and she failed to state a due process claim.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ossai, No. 06-1634,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government's evidence was sufficient on essential element of robbery under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1951(a), that the robbery obstructed, delayed or affected interstate commerce, where the manager's testimony that she would have deposited the stolen funds in the business' bank accounts, which were used to make out-of-state purchases, sufficed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
