 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Borrero-Mccormick v. Univ. of Health Scis. Antigua Sch. of Med., No. 08-2284,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In former medical student's breach of contract action, the district court erred in granting university's motion for judgment at midtrial because evidence that was presented was legally sufficient--though conflicting and dubious in some respects--for a reasonable jury to conclude that student had completed clinical rotations necessary for a diploma.
|
|||||
| Burke v. McDonald, Nos. 07-2691, 07-2692,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a rational jury could have found that defendant trooper withheld exclusionary DNA test results from prosecutors and a magistrate in a manner that prevented those officials from making informed and independent decisions, a district court properly refused to limit damages to the period between arrest and arraignment.
|
|||||
| Chedid v. Holder, No. 08-1552,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA's denial of the alien's second motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a on the ground that he failed to establish the requisite diligence was not arbitrary or capricious since his affidavit provided no information regarding the actions he took during the one-year period immediately following the BIA's denial of his first motion to reopen.
|
|||||
| Citibank Global Mkts., Inc. v. Santana, Nos. 08-1533, 08-1739,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Considering all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the negotiation, the settlement agreement was binding under Puerto Rico law, and the appellate court detected no fraud or absence of disclosure that justified unraveling or disturbing the agreement under P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 4828.
|
|||||
| Marrero-Colon v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth., No. 07-2824,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly dismissed many claims for political discrimination as time-barred and properly granted summary judgment on § 1983 discrimination and retaliation claims. As to the later, the employee failed to create an issue of material fact that a promotion was an adverse action or that a job reclassification was discriminatory.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Astrue, No. 08-2486,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 21, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since trigger points were the only objective signs of fibromyalgia, the ALJ effectively was requiring objective evidence beyond the clinical findings necessary for a diagnosis of fibromyalgia under established medical guidelines, and that was error. Thus, the ALJ's reasoning that the claimant's fibromyalgia was not disabling was flawed.
|
|||||
| McCreath v. Holder, No. 08-2276,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 21, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner alien argued that he was entitled to have the BIA remand to the IJ to consider in the first instance whether he fit within the marriage annulment exception In re Magana. But he cited to no statute or rule that required the BIA to remand rather than decide the issue itself, and in fact, the BIA had the power to decide the issue itself.
|
|||||
| United States v. Allen, No. 08-1451,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 22, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to suppress firearm and ammunition for Fourth Amendment violation was proper because district court did not abuse discretion in finding defendant failed to raise genuine issue of material fact as to whether officer lawfully reached position from which he saw gun in plain view or existence of probable cause. Hearing was unnecessary.
|
|||||
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. |
