 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bartel v. Walsh (In re Bartel), BAP NO. MB 08-078,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bankruptcy court's decision to grant summary judgment to state law enforcement officials was affirmed because the law enforcement officials did not violate the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C.S. ¿ 362 when they served a warrant on the debtor and seized financial records. Debtor's related civil rights actions were not actionable.
|
|||||
| Fatsis v. Braunstein, BAP NO. MB 08-091,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A contempt order sanctioning a Chapter 13 debtor for selling stock without court permission was affirmed where the confirmation order clearly and unambiguously provided that the stock remained property of the estate, and 11 U.S.C.S. ¿ 363(c) did not apply as the debtor was not engaged in the stock selling business.
|
|||||
| Meuser v. Fed. Express Corp., No. 08-1106,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A claim under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act was properly dismissed for lack of evidence that an employer interfered with an employee's rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion. A claim for discharge in violation of public policy was also properly dismissed because the working conditions would not have forced a reasonable person to resign.
|
|||||
| Rice v. Hall, Nos. 07-2660, 07-2693,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas petitioner's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain DNA testing on all the items at a crime scene failed because his argument as to prejudice rested almost entirely on "mays" and "could haves." Nothing created any likelihood that the result of forensic testing would have been exculpatory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Angulo-Hernandez, Nos. 07-2428; 07-2453; 07-2460; 07-2497,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 5, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A violation of 46 U.S.C.S. ¿ 70503(a)(1) required proof that, inter alia, defendants knowingly or intentionally possessed the drugs with the intent to distribute them. Evidence strongly indicated that the convicted defendants knew about the drugs on board the vessel. Evidence also supported their convictions on conspiracy charge.
|
|||||
| Colonial Sur. Co. v. Weizman, Nos. 08-1065, 08-1393,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 6, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a surety sought reimbursement from an indemnitor, the indemnitor's liability was not discharged in bankruptcy, because although the surety's claims rested on an earlier obligation that comprised a contingent claim capable of being discharged by the later bankruptcy, the indemnitor failed to list the claims under 11 U.S.C.S. ¿¿ 521 and 523.
|
|||||
| Denmark v. Liberty Life Assur. Co., No. 05-2877,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 6, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a plan administrator denied an employee's application for long-term disability benefits and the decision was upheld by the district court under ERISA, remand was warranted to permit the district court to reconsider its decision in light of a subsequent case because it was required that structural conflicts be accorded weight.
|
|||||
| Gomes v. Brady, No. 08-1810,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 6, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was not entitled to ¿ 2254 habeas relief, because although the prosecutor's comment that defense counsel was the only person who took the stand to say the inmate had not shot the victim was improper under the Fifth Amendment, the comment did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict; a Sixth Amendment claim also failed.
|
|||||
| Morel v. Daimler-Chrysler AG, No. 08-1195,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 6, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c), the federal relation-back rule, applied and because the conditions to the operation of the rule were satisfied, an amended complaint that substituted the correct party defendant related back to the date of the commencement of the action, and the action against the new defendant was timely.
|
|||||
| Stanley-Snow v. Stanley-Snow, BAP NO. MB 08-065,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 6, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a judgment for a violation under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A did not per se establish that a state court judgment should be deemed nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C.S. ¿ 523(a)(2)(A), the detailed decision by state court judge established false pretenses and false representations.
|
|||||
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. |
