 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Famm Steel, Inc. v. Sovereign Bank, No. 08-1955,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 12, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted on Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, ¿ 2(a), claim because company that borrowed from bank had not shown that bank's conduct relating to loan fell within any common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness. Evidence could not support a conclusion that bank misled company or attempted purposefully to injure it.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pakala, No. 07-2092,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 12, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was clear that in granting defendant's "ends of justice" continuances a district court adopted the grounds in his motions, defendant was estopped from claiming that he was entitled to a dismissal based on the district court's failure to follow Zedner and explain its rulings for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act.
|
|||||
| Northwest Bypass Group v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, No. 08-2116,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 16, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Monetary sanctions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1927, were properly imposed upon plaintiffs' counsel who filed motions alleging that city's communications violated a federal criminal obstruction-of-justice statute because the charge in court papers should not have been made without adequate investigation and a realistic basis on which to make claim.
|
|||||
| United States v. Joseph, No. 08-2035,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 16, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 3582(c)(2) was properly denied because, inter alia, under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ¿ 1B1.10, the district court expressly considered his argument that he had already been punished for his disciplinary infractions, and even if deported, he still posed a threat.
|
|||||
| Lasalle-Concepcion v. Toledo-Davila, No. 08-2048,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 18, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Correy, No. 06-2029, No. 06-2156, No. 06-2496, No. 06-2497, No. 06-2498, No. 06-2589,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 18, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellants were convicted on drug conspiracy charges under 21 U.S.C.S. ¿ 841, remand was warranted because, inter alia, the district court erred in failing to make credibility determinations related to individualized drug-quantity findings, and the presentence reports relied on allegations from the indictment rather than trial evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Flores-de-Jesus, Nos. 06-2670, 06-2671, 06-2672,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 18, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellants were convicted of drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C.S. ¿ 846, their convictions were upheld because it was harmless error for the Government to use a federal agent as an overview witness since videotapes corroborated the testimony of other witnesses; manager/supervisor enhancement did not apply to two runner appellants.
|
|||||
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. |
