 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Balestracci v. NSTAR Elec. & Gas Corp., No. 05-1894,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's grant of summary judgment to the corporation on the retirees' claims for violation of the terms of the ERISA welfare benefit plan was affirmed because the dental plan documents were express that the corporation reserved the right to change even promises of lifetime benefits.
|
|||||
| Isla Nena Air Servs. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., No. 05-2501,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Airline's tort claims arising from loss of its aircraft in a crash were properly dismissed because the Puerto Rico Supreme Court would rule that the economic loss rule barred an action under Article 1802 of Puerto Rico's Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141. Further, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141 did not apply to commercial transactions.
|
|||||
| NLRB v. Pan Am. Grain Co., No. 05-1274,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where 15 striking employees were laid off and the NLRB argued that the employees were entitled to Laidlaw relief, the NLRB's motion to vacate the court's judgment and substitute its own version was denied because the controversy was not briefed on the original petition for review and was never decided by the court.
|
|||||
| Senior v. NSTAR Elec. & Gas Corp., No. 05-2015,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former union employees who took advantage of early retirement programs were not entitled under § 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C.S. § 185(a), to vested lifetime dental benefits that could not be changed by the company, based on construing the CBA and benefit plan documents, and the practice, usage, and custom of the parties as to retiree dental benefits.
|
|||||
| Cordero-Hernandez v. Hernandez-Ballesteros, No. 04-2435,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court properly dismissed a business buyer's wire fraud claim under RICO, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1964(c), alleging fraudulent representations made over the phone, because the buyer never explicitly alleged that the calls were interstate calls nor stated specifically during which calls, when, and by whom, the fraudulent representations were made.
|
|||||
| Elias v. Sumski (In re Elias), No. 06-1091,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in denying debtor's motion for a stay pending his appeal from a bankruptcy court order granting a bank relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(d) so that the bank could foreclose on its mortgage loan to the debtor because the debtor's likelihood of success on the merits was slim.
|
|||||
| Salem Hosp. v. Mass. Nurses Ass'n, No. 05-2614,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the basis for an arbitrator's decision--that a provision in the parties' CBA was not subjection to interpretation--was not plausible since there was a logical, rational alternative explanation of the provision, the arbitrator lacked authority to overrule a hospital's on-call assignment policy and her decision could not stand.
|
|||||
| United States v. Castro-Polanco, No. 05-2654,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in increasing base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)A) after defendant pled guilty to violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 because district court gave reasoned explanation for sentence, and there was no plain error in characterization of prior felony as "crime of violence."
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
