 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| LLP Mortg., LTD. v. Sugarman, No. 08-2134,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 7, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mortgage company was not entitled to recover deficiency remaining on loan after disposition of collateral without guarantor's consent because predecessor was required to exhaust whatever collateral it had before turning to guarantor. Although boilerplate language provided otherwise, added typewritten sentences overrode boilerplate in that respect.
|
|||||
| Lopez v. Consejo De Titulares Del Condominio Carolina Court Apts., BAP NO. PR 08-068,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 7, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bankruptcy court abused its discretion where it awarded debtor's counsel one-third of fees requested for litigating a violation of stay action on the ground that the amount of damages debtor received was minimal. Court should have applied the lodestar formula; this was the first step to an assessment of fees under 11 U.S.C.S. § 330 and § 362(h).
|
|||||
| Town of Winthrop v. FAA, No. 08-1703,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 8, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's determination that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.S. § 552(b)(5), FAA could withhold certain documents in response to town's FOIA request was affirmed because basic principles of fairness and reasonableness counseled against permitting town, after benefitting from district court's expedited rulings, to complain about a process it agreed to.
|
|||||
| United States ex rel. Gagne v. City of Worcester, No. 08-1904,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 8, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Relators' allegations in FCA action did not meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)'s pleading requirements for claims under 31 U.S.C.S. § 3728(a)(2) and (a)(3). Details were lacking on what the alleged false, misleading and fraudulent representations consisted of, who made them, or when they were made to get a false claim paid or approved by the Government.
|
|||||
| In re Grand Jury, No. 08-1880,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 11, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A less demanding requirement of particularized need applied when a grand jury witness demanded access to a transcript, rather than a copy of the transcript, and under that requirement, the threats of perjury prosecution, combined with the complexity of the witness's testimony, supplied the necessary particularized need to permit the witness access.
|
|||||
| Pina v. Maloney, No. 07-1267,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 11, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the court could not endorse a district court's procedural default ruling because the procedural rule relied upon had not been regularly and consistently applied by the state court, the court nevertheless affirmed the denial of a habeas petition, as petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim plainly failed on the merits.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Thompson, No. 08-1425,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 11, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not erroneously deny the 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition because the supposed weaknesses in the prosecution's case were not significant when weighed against the detailed witness testimony, and thus, there was no reasonable probability the result would have been different had the jury not heard the improperly admitted evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gorbea Del-Valle, No. 08-1234,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 12, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A great deal of evidence linked defendant to a drug conspiracy and demonstrated his substantial involvement. None of that evidence was undercut by the evidence presented in defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial, and the district court did not commit a manifest abuse of discretion in denying defendant's motion.
|
|||||
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. |
