 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Evans v. Akers, No. 07-1140,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employees who received lump-sum distributions of the entire balance in their employer's defined contribution plan had standing to sue as participants under ERISA because their benefits were at stake in the suit which alleged that fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties by imprudently maintaining investment in the employer's securities.
|
|||||
| United States v. Chandler, No. 07-1583,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant waived his right to appeal a within-guidelines sentence and enforcement would not have been a miscarriage of justice, the waiver was enforced and the appeal dismissed. Defendant stipulated that seized cash represented drug proceeds, and he should have known that a cash-to-drugs conversion would be factored into his sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Godin, No. 07-2332,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1028A(a)(1) was reversed where the government had to prove that defendant knew that the means of identification used during commission of an enumerated felony belonged to another person and it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew that the false social security number was assigned to another person.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jenkins, No. 07-1814,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant rejected plea offer that included an appeal waiver, he did not show vindictive prosecution violating his Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment rights on the basis of the Government's filing a 21 U.S.C.S. ¿ 851 information as the waiver was a bargaining chip, there was no presumption of vindictiveness, and he admitted his prior convictions.
|
|||||
| Garcia v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 07-2723,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 23, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee's Title VII gender discrimination suit failed to survive summary judgment because she did not provide sufficient evidence showing that defendants' explanation for firing her was a pretext since, inter alia, there was no direct evidence of gender bias, male coworkers were not similarly situated, and she had poor work performance.
|
|||||
| Kechichian v. Mukasey, No. 07-1584,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 23, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of denial of alien's 8 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1231(b)(3)(A) withholding of removal claim was denied as BIA's findings were supported by substantial evidence as required by 8 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1252(b)(4)(B); inter alia, alien was not a member of group of doctors unwilling to participate in government corruption as she had never practiced medicine.
|
|||||
| Paging Network, Inc. v. Nationwide Paging, Inc. (In re Arch Wireless, Inc.), No. 07-1611,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 23, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation's motion to hold the company in contempt for pursuing its claims against the corporation was denied because there was no clear error in the bankruptcy court's determination that the company was a "known creditor", and thus, that the discharge injunction did not apply to the company's pre-confirmation claim.
|
|||||
| Town of Winthrop v. FAA, No. 07-1953,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 23, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Review of an FAA decision to construct a new airport taxiway was denied because the FAA took all environmental concerns into account, responded, and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in issuing its final order. A NEPA supplemental environmental impact statement was not needed as the final statement was accurate, adequate, current, and valid.
|
|||||
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. |
