 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Duhaime v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., Nos. 05-1485, 06-1209,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an insurance-related suit, plaintiff's arguments on appeal were rejected because, inter alia, the notice of appeal sufficed to appeal from two orders, including an order denying Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) relief, and he relied on the wrong version of a settlement agreement in arguing that the insurance did not make appropriate settlement offers.
|
|||||
| EnergyNorth Natural Gas, Inc. v. Century Indem. Co., No. 05-2149,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 in favor of gas corporation in declaratory judgment suit against excess liability insurer in environmental contamination case was proper; fact that contamination site was destroyed before policy period did not absolve insurer of liability as migration of toxic waste continued into policy period.
|
|||||
| Kiman v. N.H. Dep't of Corr., No. 05-1998,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of department of corrections and officials was vacated in Title II of ADA suit; inmate presented admissible evidence that might have demonstrated genuine issue of material fact on whether officials failed to, inter alia, provide regular access to prescription medications and to shower chair or accessible shower facilities.
|
|||||
| Padro v. Chao, No. 04-2638,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee filed two separate discrimination complaints and defendants were granted summary judgment as to both complaints based on failure to exhaust, remand was necessary for the district court to consider the employee's 2001 claim because the magistrate judge focused exclusively on the 1999 claim and did not address the 2001 claim.
|
|||||
| Rowlands v. Fraser (In re Rowlands), BAP NO. MB 05-057,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where creditors, pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 727(a)(2)(A), contended that bankruptcy debtor was not entitled to discharge because he fraudulently concealed interests in trust properties, evidentiary hearing was required since summary judgment evidence was insufficient to establish that debtor had actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.
|
|||||
| United States v. Abad-Reyes, No. 05-2603,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant convicted of illegal reentry was properly sentenced to statutory maximum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a), which was above parties' stipulated guidelines range, because district court considered 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, did not rely on impermissible factors in determining sentence, gave plausible reasons, and reached defensible result.
|
|||||
| United States v. Diaz-Correa, No. 04-2187; No. 04-2331; No. 04-2369; No. 04-2420,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing under Booker. Federal government failed to meet its burden of proving that lower sentence would not have been imposed had Guidelines been advisory, and sentencing stipulations in plea agreement gave no insight into what district court would have done if Guidelines were not mandatory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia, No. 04-1431,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights were not violated by admission of the warrant of deportation when the officer who signed the warrant was not made available for cross-examination because such warrants were "non-testimonial" and thus, not subject to the Confrontation Clause.
|
|||||
| United States v. McGuire, No. 06-1166,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed as, inter alia, district court permissibly considered a series of arrests that did not culminate in convictions in determining his attitude, capacity for rehabilitation, and absence of remorse for his prior criminal conduct, and district court applied relevant statutory factors, under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553, to facts.
|
|||||
| United States v. Washington, No. 05-2569,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) was not unreasonable. District court expressly noted sentence's severity compared to small amount of heroin involved but concluded that it was warranted in light of Congressional intent to sentence career offenders to imprisonment near maximum term.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
