 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Conteh v. Gonzales, No. 05-1282,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 371 qualified as a conviction for an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(43)(U) because the offenses charged as the objective of the conspiracy for which the alien was convicted were offenses involving fraud or deceit in which the loss to victims exceeded $ 10,000.
|
|||||
| Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, Inc., No. 05-1970,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In affirming the decision that site-specific art could be removed from a park, the appeals court rejected the district court's conclusion that the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) protected site-specific art but that it could be removed under the public presentation exception, holding instead that VARA did not apply to site-specific art at all.
|
|||||
| Ramirez v. Gonzales, No. 05-2723,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3) was denied because substantial evidence supported an immigration judge's conclusion that there was no objective basis for believing that an alien was a target of continuing politically-motivated violence in Guatemala.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tzannos, No. 05-2689,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting defendant's motion to suppress following Franks hearing was reversed because defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no confidential informant existed, and district court's refusal to hear, ex parte and in camera, the government's explanation of why the hearing procedure was flawed was an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Vazquez-Valentin v. Santiago-Diaz, No. 03-1949,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Verdict for employee who alleged political discrimination was vacated because exclusion of documentary evidence as hearsay, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), was not harmless error. Documents were not offered to proved truth of the matter asserted, but to show that employee's superiors had reason to believe that they were required to demote her.
|
|||||
| Grigous v. Gonzales, No. 05-2105,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of denial of motion to reopen removal proceedings was denied because the court rejected alien's argument that failure to inform him of consequences of failure to appear for subsequent hearings in a language that he could understand violated due process protections and BIA's past precedent. Precedent cited was inapplicable.
|
|||||
| Mulloy v. Acushnet Co., No. 05-2160,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for a former employer was affirmed because a former employee was not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA or a qualified handicapped person under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4 since he could not perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodation.
|
|||||
| Plaka v. Gonzales, No. 05-2341,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of the denial of a claim for asylum was denied because, like the petitioner in another case involving an Albanian national, the infrequency of events supported the BIA's view that the Albanian only proved a series of isolated events rather than the systematic mistreatment that was necessary to demonstrate past persecution.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cruz-Arroyo, No. 05-1681,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support the conviction on extortion charges under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1951(a), where a plausible view of the evidence supported a finding that defendant accepted the money orders in exchange for official acts, and any payments that depleted the foreign company's assets affected interstate commerce.
|
|||||
| United States v. Quirindongo-Martinez, No. 05-1389,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for escape, a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 751(a), was affirmed because the sentencing court's reasons, although not expressly stated, could be inferred from the record. Implicit rejection of defendant's duress claim was plausible, and the resulting 33-month consecutive sentence, in accordance with U.S.S.G., was defensible.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
