 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Locke v. Karass, No. 06-1747,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Service fees charged by state employee's union to nonmember employees were proper, applying Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n, because extra-unit litigation costs were funded through a pooling arrangement and were substantively related to the bargaining process. Such costs were chargeable to nonmember appellants without offending the First Amendment.
|
|||||
| Mag Jewelry Co. v. Cherokee, Inc., Nos. 06-1556; 06-2127,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On copyright owner's infringement claim, motion for judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1) was properly granted because no reasonable finder of fact could conclude that a second designer had reasonable opportunity to view the owner's work before producing similar angel design. Whether a copy was from the owner's design was a matter of conjecture.
|
|||||
| Maine v. Johnson, No. 04-1363, No. 04-1375,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The EPA did not err in approving the State of Maine's discharge permitting program under 33 U.S.C.S. § 1342 as to non-tribal facilities that discharged into tribal waters as the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Acts and the Maine Implementing Act, 25 U.S.C.S. §§ 1721-1735, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, §§ 6201-6214, established such state authority.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pratt, No. 05-2624,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a handgun, a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), though the trial court erred by not presenting the subject matter of a stipulation, covering two elements, until after evidence closed, reversal was unwarranted as there was no injustice given that defendant conceded those elements.
|
|||||
| Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro, Nos. 06-1720, 06-2228,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred when it denied the officer's Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion and entered judgment against him because it was clear that the driver did not state a viable § 1983 claim on either a Fourth Amendment or a substantive due process theory since no properly instructed jury could have found a violation of constitutional rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Weikert, No. 06-1861,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Requiring a supervised releasee to provide a DNA sample, as called for by the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, did not violate his rights under the Fourth Amendment because, based on the totality of the circumstances, the supervised releasee's expectation of privacy was outweighed by the Government's interests, such as solving crimes.
|
|||||
| Boukhtouchen v. Gonzales, No. 06-2587,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien was properly denied withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3)(A) as, while he claimed that, while in Algeria, he was a politically active member of the Berber minority, and that he would face persecution if he returned, he did not show that he would be specifically targeted by the government, and the BIA addressed his arguments.
|
|||||
| United States v. Charlton, No. 06-2256,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The declaration of a mistrial following the jury's third declaration of deadlock and the giving of an Allen charge, which, under the circumstances, probably encouraged it to continue deliberating following a weekend, was not improper and a retrial would not violate Double Jeopardy as that no verdict was reached did not end the original jeopardy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
