 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fontanez-Nunez v. Janssen Ortho LLC, No. 05-1854,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to employers on an employee's Title VII and ADEA claims because many claims were time-barred, the evidence did not create an inference of discrimination nor establish that the reason for termination was pretextual, and the facts did not rise to the level of actionable harassment or a hostile environment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Torres-Rosario, No. 05-1202,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence on his plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 were affirmed because defendant did not show that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow him to withdraw his plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).
|
|||||
| United States v. Zapete-Garcia, No. 05-1352,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 48-month sentence for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 1546(a) was vacated because the district court failed to provide any reasons for an eight-fold increase based on defendant's two deportations and it was unreasonable for the district court to have relied on defendant's single prior arrest as justification for enhancing his sentence.
|
|||||
| Visiting Nurse Ass'n Gregoria Auffant, Inc. v. Thompson, No. 04-2721,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deferred plan specifications found in the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual, did not conflict with the requirements articulated in the Medicare Act and its regulations where they detailed the requirements for determining and confirming reasonable costs under a deferred compensation plan, pursuant to the requirements of the regulations.
|
|||||
| Mendez-Soto v. Rodriguez, No. 04-2351,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Technicians' retaliation claims were properly dismissed as moot because repetition of circumstances of a mass lobbying effort was unlikely. After district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c)(3), a claim for withheld benefits under Puerto Rico law could not be converted to a First Amendment claim.
|
|||||
| Orta-Castro v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme Quimica P.R., Inc., No. 05-1984,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in an employer's favor on ADA and FMLA claims was affirmed because an employee did not establish that she was discharged because of her disability, and the employer had good reason not to give her another position, i.e., it would have put her in contact with a supervisor who she alleged caused her mental stress.
|
|||||
| Pomales v. Celulares Telefonica, Inc., No. 05-1796,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of an employer on Title VII claims for a hostile work environment and retaliation was affirmed because a single incident of harassing conduct did not establish a hostile work environment and there was no evidence to connect the employee's complaint about harassment with the decision to terminate her.
|
|||||
| Valentin-Almeyda v. Municipality of Aguadilla, Nos. 04-2413, 04-2414,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to give a Faragher jury instruction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51 did not constitute plain error where although there was testimony that the city had an anti-sexual-harassment policy, there was no basis in the evidence that would have permitted a finding that the city exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
