 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Acevedo-Feliciano v. Ruiz-Hernandez, No. 04-1154,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of the city and the officers' Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) motion as to the employees' procedural due process claim was vacated where the statute did not support the district court's ruling that Law 52, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 711c prohibited the extension of Law 52-funded jobs using municipal funds since the statute contained no such prohibition.
|
|||||
| United States v. Martin, No. 04-1834,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's case was remanded for resentencing on convictions under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) after Booker because defendant met his burden of showing, through evidence presented at sentencing and proffered on appeal, a reasonable likelihood of a lower sentence.
|
|||||
| Azubuko v. MBNA Am. Bank, No. 05-2824,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hudson v. Dipaolo, No. 05-2423,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in denying an inmate's motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal because the motion was filed well beyond the 180-day period in which a motion to reopen would have been permitted under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), and the inmate had failed to fulfill his duty to diligently monitor the docket.
|
|||||
| United States v. Aitoro, No. 04-1742,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to suppress a gun found during a stop-and-frisk was affirmed but the case was remanded to resentence defendant on convictions under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) and 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) because there was a reasonable probability that the district court, allowed to treat the USSG as advisory, would have given defendant a lower sentence.
|
|||||
| McConkie v. Nichols, No. 05-2727,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's § 1983 action, alleging that detective violated his substantive due process right by stating that information from interview would remain confidential (plaintiff admitted to sexual abuse of a child in interview), was properly dismissed on summary judgment. No reasonable juror could find that detective's conduct shocked the conscience.
|
|||||
| Some v. Gonzales, No. 05-2227,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien alleged that she received threatening letters because she and a group of women helped a school and took girls to the school, substantial evidence supported the finding that she did not have a well-founded fear of persecution under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101 and 1158 because there was no evidence that any of the group members were harmed.
|
|||||
| McCloskey v. Mueller, No. 05-2690,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim under the FTCA against the federal government, FBI, its director, and agent, for wrongful death was properly dismissed because the government was the only proper defendant and because no duty arose under Massachusetts tort law either to protect the victim or to ward off his slayer, who had earlier called the FBI asking to be apprehended.
|
|||||
| Pagan v. Calderon, No. 05-1811,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a corporation and related individuals alleged that a former governor influenced a government lender to reject a loan, their claims were dismissed because the individuals lacked Article III standing to sue for the injury to the corporation, and the governor was entitled to qualified immunity as to the Fourteenth Amendment claims.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
