 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Costa v. Marotta, Gund, Budd, & Dzera, LLC, No. 07-1898,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A creditor, who sought to intervene as a matter of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) in an adversary action against professionals for malpractice in their dealings with a debtor, forfeited his appellate arguments, and no compelling reason existed to excuse his default.
|
|||||
| Sombah v. Mukasey, No. 07-1481,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indonesian Christians who had been harassed by majority Muslims failed to show that their mistreatment rose to the level of persecution, and their petitions for asylum were properly denied. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement findings of fact were conclusive under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
|
|||||
| United States v. Riccio, No. 07-2604,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's request for a mistrial during his trial on a charge of violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 1001 was properly denied because, while the Government's misstatements of the evidence constituted prosecutorial misconduct, they did not prejudice defendant; the remarks were brief and not deliberate, and a strong and thorough curative instruction was given.
|
|||||
| Asociacion de Periodistas de P.R. v. Mueller, No. 07-2196,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Journalists' allegations that the FBI violated their First Amendment rights when agents assaulted them without giving them chance to exit gated area where a warrant was being executed was properly dismissed on qualified immunity grounds as they had no right to be there; the media did not have a right of access to property beyond the public domain.
|
|||||
| Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC, Nos. 07-2078, 07-2246,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In infringement suit under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1114, injunction requiring alteration of competitor's trade name was improper because it was clear error to find that the phrase "duck tours" was nongeneric. Due to lack of alternatives, "duck tours"-- the most common term to describe services at issue--could not be appropriated for a party's exclusive use.
|
|||||
| Gonzalez-Mesias v. Mukasey, No. 07-2346,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the BIA found an alien ineligible for a waiver of deportability under the INA, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(c), based on a rule adopted in two prior BIA decision, the court refused to follow a contrary Second Circuit decision because it was bound by the law of the case doctrine to follow two prior First Circuit cases, which affirmed the BIA's rule.
|
|||||
| Negron-Fuentes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, No. 07-2463,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissals of arguable ERISA claims were vacated because district court erred in applying claim preclusion branch of res judicata. The employee's original suit was against only his employer. The employer, who was not an administrator, was not otherwise a proper defendant in an ERISA benefits action within the scope of 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B).
|
|||||
| Julce v. Mukasey, No. 07-2362,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 20, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where alien was convicted for possession with intent to distribute under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32C(a), though he argued he was eligible for cancellation of removal per 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b(a) as the statute encompassed conduct punishable per 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(4) as a misdemeanor, his argument failed as § 841(b)(1)(D) provided maximum penalty.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hilario-Hilario, No. 06-1007, No. 06-1009, No. 06-1010, No. 06-1011, No. 06-1013,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 20, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants were convicted under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324(a)(1)(A) for conducting an alien smuggling venture, their convictions were affirmed as, inter alia, even if their placement in a photo lineup was suggestive, the risk of prejudice was minimal given that witnesses had been traveling with them for 30 hours and were shown the photos upon arrival.
|
|||||
| Warren Freedenfeld Assocs. v. McTigue, No. 07-1602, No. 07-1603,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 20, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Architectural firm's infringement claim was erroneously dismissed as untimely under 17 U.S.C.S. § 507(b), because it was incorrectly charged with inquiry notice as of date its client's hospital opened when no facts prior to firm's discovery of its copyrighted designs in article would have made reasonable person suspect that client violated them.
|
|||||
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. |
