 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Marrero-Gutierrez v. Molina, No. 06-2527,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Wrongful demotion claim was properly dismissed as time-barred because there was no support for argument that the limitations period should have accrued when a public employee learned of alleged discriminatory motives behind discrete act. Neither the procedural challenges nor merits of another employee's constitutional claims survived dismissal.
|
|||||
| Sersnova v. Gonzales, No. 05-1983,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Review of BIA's denial of an alien's application for asylum and withholding of removal was denied because, although BIA arguably erred by not mentioning the alien's request to expand the record in its summary affirmance of the IJ's decision, remand would have been futile because the additional documents offered would not have changed the result.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ziskind, No. 03-2645,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 371 and 18 U.S.C.S. § 659 was upheld because admission of stipulation that defendant's coconspirator had previously pleaded guilty to counts of the indictment with which defendant was being charged did not constitute reversible error stemming from violation of Confrontation Clause right, as interpreted in Crawford.
|
|||||
| United States v. Massachusetts, No. 06-2361, No. 06-2362,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the district court's failure to apply an overlap analysis, the court erred in concluding, as a matter of judgment on the pleadings, that the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C.S. § 1221 et seq., left no room for the state government to enact Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21M, §§ 4, 6 and Mass Gen. Laws ch. 21, § 50C.
|
|||||
| Babani v. Gonzales, No. 06-2016,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The BIA properly upheld the denial of an alien's 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(b)(1)(A) asylum application as the alien, an Albanian who was allegedly persecuted for her father's anticommunist efforts, did not show that events occurring after the Socialist Party seized power occurred due to her political opinions pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
|
|||||
| Jean v. Mass. State Police, No. 06-1775,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Preliminary injunction was affirmed because it was agreed that the First Amendment prevented the police from enforcing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, and interfering with an activist's internet posting of a video of an arrest and search, when the activist had reason to know at the time she accepted the recording that it was illegally recorded.
|
|||||
| Mongeau v. City of Marlborough, No. 06-2666,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A landowner's claim that a building commissioner violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights was properly denied because the commissioner's alleged behavior, denying a building permit and improperly interfering in the zoning process, did not shock the conscience, which was the applicable test in the First Circuit.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
