 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Guerrero-Santana v. Gonzales, No. 06-2364,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for judicial review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229 was denied where the doctrine of equitable tolling was not a means of rescuing a party who failed to exercise due diligence and the alien sat idly by for 14 months without seeking judicial review of the denial of his motion to reopen.
|
|||||
| Jennings v. Jones, No. 05-2522,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment as matter of law in arrestee's § 1983 excessive force suit was improper because, viewing evidence in light most favorable to jury verdict, officer was not entitled to qualified immunity when he increased force applied, breaking arrestee's ankle, after arrestee stopped resisting and stated that officer was hurting previously injured ankle.
|
|||||
| Jennings v. Jones, No. 05-2522,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 17, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| NLRB v. Harding Glass Co., No. 06-2540,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the company failed to comply with the NLRB's rules for answering compliance specifications, the appellate court rejected the company's arguments and enforced the NLRB's order, which awarded back pay to the employees pursuant to the NLRB's broad remedial powers under § 10(c) (29 U.S.C.S. § 160(c)) of the NLRA.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jose, No. 05-1126,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error at all, much less plain error in the district court's forfeiture order under 31 U.S.C.S. § 5332 where the amount of forfeiture simply was not grossly disproportional to the gravity of defendant's offense and thus, did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Taylor, No. 06-2216,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Non-jail sentence was unreasonable in light of the district court's explanation and the factors the court was obligated to consider under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a). Thus, the sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing that took proper account of all of the factors listed in § 3553(a) and providing a reasoned explanation for its result.
|
|||||
| United Seniors Ass'n v. Philip Morris USA, No. 06-2447,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayer advocacy group lacked standing to file a private cause of action per the Medicare Secondary Payer Statute (MSP), 42 U.S.C.S. § 1395y(b)(3)(A), to force tobacco companies to reimburse Medicare expenditures on smoking-related illnesses as there was no qui tam action in the MSP and none of its members were beneficiaries who had so suffered.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reiner, No. 06-1451,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant ran a massage parlor for men offering sexual services for money, his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when a Franks hearing was not held as, inter alia, information was not stale given that prostitution operating under the guise of a long-standing business was the type of enterprise that would remain unchanged over years.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
