 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Collazo v. Nicholson, No. 06-2678,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former employee alleged that he was discriminated against in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 621-634, his former employer was properly granted summary judgment on hostile environment allegations as the relief that he sought-compensatory damages for mental anguish, pain, suffering, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment-was unavailable.
|
|||||
| Gilmore v. Citigroup, Inc. (In re Citigroup, Inc.), No. 06-2565, No. 07-1150,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Three relevant Capital Accumulation Plan (CAP) documents, when read together, unambiguously set forth that a participant's voluntary termination of his employment would result in both the forfeiture of any non-vested restricted stock he elected to receive as well as the underlying monetary compensation foregone to take advantage of the CAP.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mulero-Algarin, No. 07-1701,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to compel Government to file Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion was properly denied as assistance did not warrant an inference that Government's refusal was driven by illegitimate motive; defendant, though he opened up, initially downplayed his role; and the receipt of a safety valve reduction did not qualify him for a Rule 35 motion.
|
|||||
| Beetz v. Ambrosi, No. 07-2449,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 28, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court abused discretion by dismissing a case with prejudice for failure to file amended complaint within 30 days of order as grant of later withdrawal motion by plaintiffs ex-counsel also implicitly granted prong of withdrawal motion seeking further extension of at least 30 days and amended complaint in fact was filed within that period.
|
|||||
| Lutaaya v. Mukasey, No. 07-2328,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 28, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal appellate court lacked jurisdiction over denial of an alien's asylum claim, which was untimely per 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a)(2)(B), as her argument that the IJ violated her due process rights by failing to consider her testimony and failing to allow her to fully explain her reasons for failing to meet the deadline was not a constitutional claim.
|
|||||
| Michel v. Mukasey, No. 07-2166,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 28, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien, a Haitian national and Democratic Convergence member, sought review of the denial of his claims for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158 and withholding of removal, his petition was denied as a presumption of future persecution pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A) was rebutted by the fact that President Aristide was no longer in power.
|
|||||
| Niemic v. Galas, No. 07-1763,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 28, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an inmate sued corrections employees and medical personnel, and the medical personnel were granted summary judgment, a Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) determination was allowed to stand because remaining claims were not so intertwined with the adjudicated claims as to invalidate it, and the judgment jettisoned parties, not claims, from the case.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bates, No. 07-1370,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 28, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's guilty plea to possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252A was valid because there was no plain error-he was offered many chances to withdraw his plea after being told of the mandatory minimum sentence but did not do so; also, he knowingly waived counsel before pleading to a prior crime, and the prior conviction was valid.
|
|||||
| United States v. Aviles-Colon, Nos. 05-1384, 05-2039, 05-2040,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 31, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's refusal to grant a new trial on basis of Brady violation could not stand because DEA reports, or evidence developed on basis of DEA reports, could have been important for impeachment purposes at trial by helping defendant advance his defense that he was not part of codefendant's drug conspiracy but a member of a rival conspiracy.
|
|||||
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. |
