 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blanchard v. Cortes-Molina, No. 05-2489,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A boat owner's failure to verify that his insurer was defending negligence suit did not constitute extraordinary circumstances that justified setting aside the default judgment that was entered against him pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Defendants' due process rights were not violated by errors in the judgment because judgment was corrected.
|
|||||
| Santos v. Posadas De P.R. Assocs., No. 05-2070,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Guests were properly awarded recovery in their suit against a hotel based on an accident in its pool. Although the hotel had to present its case prior to completion of the guests' case, due to the unavailability of the guests' expert, the change in the order of proof was within the scope of Fed. R. Evid. 611(a), and the hotel was not prejudiced.
|
|||||
| United States v. Anderson, No. 04-2709,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentencing appeal was partially sustained. Fact that it had granted a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2 safety valve reduction did not prevent district court from also adopting a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement. Remand was necessary because the government failed to show that Booker error was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Anderson, No. 05-1872,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violations of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) was affirmed because the trial court did not commit reversible error in allowing the jury to use a transcript of the taped drug buy, in prohibiting admission of an informant's prior conviction, or in declining to give a "missing witness" instruction.
|
|||||
| Baella-Silva v. Hulsey, No. 05-1214,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where parties entered into a settlement agreement in an attorneys' fees dispute, plaintiffs were properly sanctioned because they disclosed confidential terms and filed suit against the former client; plaintiffs' attack on the jurisdictional basis for the settlement judgment was rejected since the judgment was not void under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.
|
|||||
| Iverson v. City of Boston, No. 05-2697,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment to the city because the self-evaluation regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 35.105, which the individual and the organization claimed was violated, imposed a burden on public entities not imposed by Title II of the ADA itself and, thus, was not enforceable through Title II's private right of action.
|
|||||
| Obershaw v. Lanman, No. 05-2419,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of § 2254 habeas relief was affirmed on appeal because the failure to instruct the jury on unanimity on the factors upon which to base a finding of extreme atrocity or cruelty did not raise an Apprendi problem as there was no increase in the statutory maximum penalty, and besides, the factors were evidentiary considerations, not elements.
|
|||||
| Ramos-Pinero v. Puerto Rico, No. 05-1797,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, June 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a § 1983 action against governmental entities and others for the tragic death of a boy who died after falling into an uncovered manhole was affirmed because defendants did not waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the failure to cover the manhole, if true, did not shock the conscience of the court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gravenhorst, No. 03-2057,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government presented sufficient evidence of a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2422(b) by showing defendant engaged in a substantial step toward inducing women to engage in illegal sexual conduct, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting prior bad act evidence when it was used to show his intent in sending emails to other females.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sierra, No. 05-1564; No. 05-1565,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, July 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not violate Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to rule explicitly on whether defendant qualified for a downward adjustment based on his role in the conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute because defendant had not raised any objection to the presentence investigation report and there was no factual dispute.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
