 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Enica v. Principi, No. 06-2187,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 6, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a federal employee alleged that the VA violated the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate her disability, a portion of her claim survived summary judgment because a factual dispute existed as to whether the VA fully implemented the accommodations it had agreed to or provided a reasonable response to insufficient accommodations.
|
|||||
| Gray v. Evercore Restructuring L.L.C., No. 07-2588,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 6, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that the in pari delicto defense defeated the trustee's claims was affirmed because the defense was properly asserted at the motion to dismiss stage and the adverse interest exception was not available to the corporation because the bare fact that management received bonuses upon confirmation was not sufficient to establish the exception.
|
|||||
| Gray v. Evercore Restructuring, L.L.C. (In re High Voltage Eng'g Corp.), No. 07-2589,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 6, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a trustee filed his notice of appeal in the wrong set of cases, a district court lacked jurisdiction to modify, vacate, or rescind fee awards that were entered when a reorganization plan failed. The denial of the trustee's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in the right set of cases became final and unappealable per Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
|
|||||
| Puerto Ricans for P.R. Party v. Dalmau, No. 07-2700,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 6, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal district court improperly, pursuant to 48 U.S.C.S. ¿ 864, relied on an untranslated Spanish language state court opinion in its dismissal of a case on Rooker-Feldman and res judicata grounds as the opinion formed the basis for its decision; moreover, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply as reversal of the state judgment was not sought.
|
|||||
| Ropes & Gray LLP v. Jalbert (In re Engage, Inc.), No. 08-1257,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 6, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Question of whether Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221, ¿ 50 applied to patent prosecution work was certified to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court under Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 1:03 as there was no controlling precedent, questions might be determinative of pending case, course state court would take was unclear, and answers could hinge on policy judgments.
|
|||||
| Farley v. Bissonnette, No. 08-1094,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 8, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a habeas writ was affirmed because a trial judge's instruction that the prosecution did not have to prove that no one else committed the murder did not contravene In re Winship, and because a state court's finding that the limitation on cross-examination was harmless error was not an unreasonable application of Delaware v. Van Arsdall.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jackson, No. 07-2510,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 8, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Refusal to suppress statement as to gun's location was improper under Fifth Amendment because statement was not rendered admissible under Miranda simply because it was not in response to a particular question; officers' entire course of conduct had to be examined to determine whether statement was in response to unlawful questioning under Miranda.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vasquez, No. 07-2796,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 8, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress statements made at the time of his arrest and a gun that was at the scene with the drugs. The stop was made based on a tip from a reliable informant who had provided reliable information in the past, and the tip was corroborated by the officers' observations before making the stop.
|
|||||
| Batterman v. Leahy, No. 07-2653,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 15, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's abstention under Pullman was vacated and remanded for further proceedings where Pullman abstention did not apply since there was no right under state law, property or otherwise, to be paid more than the cap and so no federal constitutional issue was presented by Committee for Public Counsel Services' refusal to do so.
|
|||||
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. |
