 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Janeiro v. Urological Surgery Prof'l Ass'n, Nos. 05-2150, 05-2208,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a claim for benefits under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B), a district court correctly applied plenary review where it did not rely solely on a structural conflict arising from a trustee's financial interest, but rather cited additional factors, including his concern over a possible claim for breach of fiduciary duty and his personal animosity.
|
|||||
| United States v. Richards, No. 05-2396,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), he was properly sentenced under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e)(1) of the Armed Career Criminal Act because, inter alia, his prior unlawful sexual contact convictions under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 255(1)(c) constituted violent felonies.
|
|||||
| Holsum De P.R., Inc. v. NLRB, No. 05-2025,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of NLRB order requiring an employee who was a unionization leader to be reinstated in his job was denied because evidence supported findings that employee was fired as a sanction for activity protected under 29 U.S.C.S. § 158(a)(3) and assertion that firing was due to allowing a stranger to ride in company truck was pretextual.
|
|||||
| Santiago-Diaz v. Laboratorio Clinico y de Referencia del Este, No. 05-2543,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in precluding expert testimony and in dismissing a patient's medical malpractice action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) because, in part, the patient failed to make timely and complete disclosures of her expert witness, as required by a case-management order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
|
|||||
| Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Pesante, No. 05-2151,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment allowing coverage to insured was reversed because application for vessel insurance indicated that the vessel was used for lobstering when, in fact, it was used for gill netting, and under R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-18-16 (2006) the insurance policy was voidable as a matter of law due to the material misrepresentation in the application.
|
|||||
| Ferrara v. United States, No. 05-1736, No. 05-1830, No. 05-1874,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate who pled guilty to racketeering based on a murder conspiracy was entitled to § 2255 relief because the Government's nondisclosure of evidence that a key witness had told the Government that the inmate had not ordered the assassination grounded the inmate's claim that his guilty plea was involuntary under the Due Process Clause.
|
|||||
| Chavez-Oliva v. Gonzales, No. 05-2609,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Facts that the alien's brothers continued to live in Guatemala and that the alien had been absent from Guatemala for over a decade, coupled with the changed country conditions, led the court to conclude that substantial evidence existed for the BIA to find that the alien failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
|
|||||
| De Araujo v. Gonzales, No. 05-1886,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's claim that the BIA deprived him of his due process right by refusing to reopen proceedings to establish eligibility for relief from removal under former 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(c) was dismissed where a constitutionally protected interest in receiving relief could not arise from relief that the Attorney General had unfettered discretion to award.
|
|||||
| Toloza-Jimenez v. Gonzales, No. 05-2134,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT was denied because she failed to challenge IJ's adverse credibility determination and did not satisfy subjective component of test to meet criteria of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A) because she could not show genuine fear of persecution.
|
|||||
| United States v. Roberson, No. 05-1315,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant offered to sell a gun during a controlled drug transaction, his convictions and sentences under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841 and 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1)(A) were upheld because, inter alia, the gun charge instruction was proper and sufficient evidence supported the finding that he used or carried the gun "in relation to" the transaction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
