 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| R.G. Fin. Corp. v. Vergara-Nunez, No. 05-1945,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The requirements of res judicata were satisfied. Thus, the extant foreclosure judgment precluded the individual both from raising his TILA-based counterclaim in the later federal action and from asserting a TILA-based right of rescission, and the district court's entry of judgment on the pleadings was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Winston, No. 05-1312,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court clearly erred when it found that defendant did not consent to the search of a nightstand where in the ordinary course a police officer was free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment, and when defendant was asked for identification, he verbally indicated that his wallet was in the nightstand.
|
|||||
| Lumaj v. Gonzales, No. 05-2209,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where substantial evidence supported an IJ's reasons for questioning an alien's veracity about his claim of persecution based on political party membership in Albania and fear of future persecution, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158, the alien's petition for review of the BIA's denial of his asylum and withholding claims was denied.
|
|||||
| Nash v. Conn. Student Loan Found. (In re Nash), No. 05-2549,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed a denial of a debtor's discharge of her education loans under 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(8) without reaching the issue of good faith because the bankruptcy judge did not commit any error of law or clear error of fact in finding a lack of sufficient evidence of the likely duration of the debtor's inability to work.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jones, No. 05-1541,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded because the government conceded error based on, among other things, the district court's deviation from the guideline sentencing range without giving any advance notice, and although the court was not bound to accept the government's concession of error, it chose to honor it under the circumstances.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lizardo, No. 04-1714,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a deputy sheriff ran license plate and warrant checks for a cocaine dealer, was present during cocaine buys, and helped the supplier take countersurveillance actions, the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that the sheriff voluntarily participated in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 846.
|
|||||
| Boakai v. Gonzales, No. 05-1961,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court lacked jurisdiction to consider an alien's challenge to the BIA's decision not to grant equitable tolling because it did not present a question of law within the meaning of the REAL ID Act; the court also had no jurisdiction over his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the BIA never decided it and it was unexhausted.
|
|||||
| NLRB v. Hotel Emples. & Rest. Emples. Int'l Union Local 26, No. 05-1924,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: NLRB order that a union violated § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by discharging its employee because she engaged in protected concerted activity was enforced because the NLRB presented substantial evidence proving that the employee's activity concerning a leafletting campaign was a motivating factor in the decision to discharge the employee.
|
|||||
| F.A.C., Inc. v. Cooperativa de Seguros de Vida , No. 05-2332,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it required a financial intermediary to include a statement in letters it wrote letters to federal government in behalf of a firm that sought to reopen Medicare reimbursement claims, which admitted that fraudulent activities occurred in its organization, because that statement was fairly part of parties' settlement.
|
|||||
| Knight v. Spencer, No. 05-1770,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate was not entitled to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254, because the state court did not violate the Confrontation Clause by denying him the opportunity on cross-examination to ask his girlfriend about an unrelated case, and counsel was not ineffective in, inter alia, failing to cross-examine her about using the victim's telephone.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
