 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beltre-Veloz v. Mukasey, No. 07-1958,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 9, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien was ordered removed in absentia, his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance was properly denied under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a because, inter alia, there was no evidence that he notified his former lawyer of the allegations against her, he never registered a meaningful complaint about her, and due diligence was lacking.
|
|||||
| City of Bangor v. Citizens Communs. Co., Nos. 07-2193, 07-2255, 07-2759, 07-2777,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 9, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court rejected challenge, brought by non-settling third and fourth parties said to be potentially responsible parties, to approval of a consent decree in a cleanup case under CERCLA 42 U.S.C.S. § 9601 et seq., because, inter alia, district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the decree was procedurally and substantively fair.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vazquez-Botet, Nos. 07-1205, 07-1398,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 9, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Closed relevancy hearing did not violate defendants' Sixth Amendment rights to a public trial and to present evidence in their own defense because the hearing was merely an offer of proof to preserve the court's relevancy determination, and thus, defendants' Sixth Amendment rights were not implicated.
|
|||||
| Wiratama v. Mukasey, No. 07-1149,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 9, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien from Indonesia allegedly was beaten because he was Roman Catholic and Chinese, he was properly denied withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231 because, although an adverse credibility determination was improper, he failed to show that he suffered from past persecution since his beating was isolated and he returned to Indonesia.
|
|||||
| AGA Fishing Group Ltd. v. Brown & Brown, Inc., No. 07-2408,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Boat owner did not establish insurer breached duty of care properly to advise it with regard to coverage needed for boat because it presented no facts showing existence of special circumstances creating duty of care. Insurer's agents did not represent that coverage was sufficient or that owner could rely on them to recommend sufficient coverage.
|
|||||
| Gomez-Perez v. Potter, No. 06-1614,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court, on remand, vacated its determination that Postmaster General and USPS were properly granted summary judgment on employee's ADEA claim for retaliation because Congress intended for the federal-sector provision of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C.S. § 633a, to include a cause of action for retaliation for filing an age-discrimination complaint.
|
|||||
| Shah v. Mukasey, No. 07-2001,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien departed the U.S. in June 2000 and filed a motion to open his prior deportation proceedings in July 2006, there was no question that at that time he resided in Canada, and thus, the alien was barred from filing a motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.34(b)(1). Moreover, he failed to show that he had not received his notice to appear.
|
|||||
| United States v. Borrero-Acevedo, No. 06-2655,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant did not preserve a claim of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N) error, defendant failed to meet the plain error standard of Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) because he had not shown that he did not know or understand that he had waived his appellate rights or that he would not have pled guilty had he realized he was waiving his appellate rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Matos, No. 07-1459,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentencing challenge failed because under a plain error analysis in a Kimbrough context, defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have received a more lenient sentence had the district court considered as a 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factor the crack to powder cocaine disparity when sentencing him.
|
|||||
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. |
