 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gonzalez-Droz v. Gonzalez-Colon, Nos. 08-1437, 08-2189,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of doctor's request for injunctive relief against Puerto Rico's medical licensing board was upheld because failure to afford doctor procedural protection to which he may have been constitutionally entitled pursuant to Due Process Clause did not establish future irreparable harm. Doctor presented only facts related to harm already suffered.
|
|||||
| Tasya v. Holder, No. 08-1586,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioners, a wife and a husband, alleged that they suffered persecution in Indonesia because they were Chinese Christians, their asylum claim was properly denied under 8 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1101 because, inter alia, the abuse alleged by each petitioner was not frequent enough to compel a finding of past persecution.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez-Berrios, No. 07-1854,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support his carjacking conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 2119 because the government proved that defendant acted with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm to the victim at the moment of the carjacking.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wallace, No. 07-1884,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in the district court's decision to impose the departure for extreme psychological injuries under U.S.S.G. ¿ 5K2.3 because aside from the terrorizing nature of the crime, the fact that the victims could identify defendant led to four years of non-stop worry and fear while defendant was on the run.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ayala-Garcia, Nos. 07-2129, 07-2130,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 24, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants on all but an aiding possession of a stolen gun count, which the court reversed, the prosecutor's improper remarks in closing argument suggesting defendants were potential killers so poisoned the well that a new trial was required for both defendants on all other counts.
|
|||||
| Nagle v. Acton-Boxborough Reg'l Sch. Dist., No. 08-2374,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee alleged that a school district's deputy superintendent told her that she could take FMLA leave, the district was entitled to summary judgment because equitable estoppel could not be applied against the government employer based upon the district's oral assurances to the employee of coverage under the FMLA.
|
|||||
| United States v. Orrego-Martinez, No. 05-2059, No. 08-1147,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial on his conviction for violations of 21 U.S.C.S. ¿¿ 331(a), (d) and 21 U.S.C.S. ¿ 333(a)(2) based on newly discovered evidence where the evidence could have been reasonably discovered prior to trial and the drugs at issue had not been approved by the FDA.
|
|||||
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. |
