 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lordes v. Mukasey, No. 07-1968,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 13, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien, who was from Brazil, was denied a petition for review as, inter alia, per 8 U.S.C.S. ¿¿ 1158(a)(3) and 1252(a)(2)(D), a federal appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review a finding that his asylum application was untimely unless he raised legal or constitutional claims, and his claim that the bar violated due process had been foreclosed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Walker, No. 07-2266,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 13, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to bank robbery under 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 2113 and argued that the district court's sentencing rationale violated 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 3582(a), she waived this argument because both she and the district court adopted the same rationale, but merely differed on the length of time required to accomplish the rehabilitation goal.
|
|||||
| Riley v. Nat'l Lumber Co. (In re Reale), BAP NO. MB 08-026,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bankruptcy court did not err when it found that payments a Chapter 7 debtor made to a lumber company before he declared bankruptcy were preferential transfers that could be recaptured under 11 U.S.C.S. ¿ 547, even though payments were made using funds drawn from bank accounts that were titled in debtor's mother's name in trust for debtor's father.
|
|||||
| Santiago-Lugo v. United States, No. 08-1462,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the six-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C.S. ¿ 2401(a) applied to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) claims. Further, where there had been a related criminal proceeding but no civil forfeiture proceeding, the cause of action accrued at the end of the criminal proceeding.
|
|||||
| Chhay v. Mukasey, No. 07-2202,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 15, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of an alien, a Cambodian who was found to be ineligible for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1158 and denied withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1231 and relief under the CAT, was denied as she did not seek asylum within a year and, though she claimed political persecution, she did not show her membership in the Sam Rainsy party.
|
|||||
| Dagley v. Russo, No. 07-2059,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 15, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was not entitled to relief on his 28 U.S.C.S. ¿ 2254 habeas petition because a prosecutor's inclusion of phrase "reasonable response" in closing argument, which represented misstatement of the definition of manslaughter, did not deprive inmate of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Result was not contrary to clearly established law.
|
|||||
| Limani v. Mukasey, No. 07-2472,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 19, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien from Algeria alleged that suspected Islamic terrorists attempted to obtain his airport security badge and his wife was threatened, their application for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1231 was properly denied because, inter alia, they alleged only isolated incidents without violence or detention; a CAT claim also failed.
|
|||||
| Prescott v. Higgins, No. 07-2809,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 20, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City and the supervisors were entitled to summary judgment on the employee's disparate impact claim under Title VII and state law where the employee failed to introduce any evidence of disparate impact; rather, his appeal hinged on the denial of his motion to take judicial notice of evidence in another case which purported to show disparate impact.
|
|||||
| Soto-Lebron v. Fed. Express Corp., Nos. 06-2501, 06-2519,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 20, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: New trial was required because erroneously admitted damage evidence directly affected the valuation of a discharged employee's emotional distress, tainting the verdict for the employee. Harm arising from termination was compensable only under Act 80, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, ¿¿ 185a to 185m.
|
|||||
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. |
