 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. Agosto-Alicea, No. 05-1743,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Puerto Rican government bank and its president were not liable to a current government appointee and a former government appointee under § 1983 for political discrimination in violation of the First Amendment because there was no evidence that the bank or the president knew that the appointees were members of the opposition political party.
|
|||||
| Esso Std. Oil Co. v. Monroig-Zayas, No. 05-1254,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applying a common-law standard, a franchisee's untimely preliminary injunction request was properly denied because he failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits when a franchisor's modest rent increase suggested that it negotiated a renewal of a franchise agreement in good faith under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act.
|
|||||
| Jalbert Leasing, Inc. v. Mass. Port Auth., No. 05-2004,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Entry of summary judgment in favor of a state airport authority was affirmed because the per-trip fee charged to bus companies for airport stops did not fit within any of the four categories prohibited by 49 U.S.C.S. § 14505 nor fit the evil--the failure to apportion a tax charged on interstate bus tickets--that the statute intended to address.
|
|||||
| United States v. Boulanger, No. 05-1477,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers were justified in conducting a no-knock entry of the defendant's apartment with a search warrant because the defendant was a suspect in an armed robbery, he had an extensive criminal record including armed robbery with a firearm, and an informant had seen what he thought was a fake gun in the apartment.
|
|||||
| United States v. McFarland, No. 05-1739,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Absent any alternative explanation, the evidence that defendant was found drunk and asleep behind the wheel of his truck with the key in the ignition was sufficient to support a finding that he knowingly and willfully placed himself in that position and was in actual physical control and to convict him of violating 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Scherrer, No. 05-1705,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in exceeding the USSG maximum in sentencing defendant after a wire fraud conviction. It was not unreasonable for judge to regard defendant's history and methods as pertinent to the nature of the offense nor to regard the aggravating circumstances on the issue of the seriousness of the offense and defendant's character.
|
|||||
| United States v. Uribe-Londono, No. 05-2121,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion for return of seized property was properly denied as premature because the government showed a need to retain the items as evidence, given that camera equipment used in committing the crime and contact information for minors were obviously related to the underlying case for sexual exploitation of children.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
