 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Laboy v. Doral Mortg. Corp. (Laboy), BAP NO. PR 08-095,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the debtors were granted relief from the mortgage that the creditor failed to properly record before the debtors filed their petition, the debtors were not entitled to additional damages, costs, or attorney's fees, under former 11 U.S.C.S. ¿ 362(h), and failed to show they had been deprived of due process by the bankruptcy court.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Handy (In re Handy), BAP NO. EP 09-020,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Record supported bankruptcy court's judgment that creditor who claimed a Chapter 7 debtor's former husband fraudulently transferred funds to the debtor, in violation of Maine's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, did not have a secured claim against the debtor's residence, and creditor's claim was discharged when court discharged all unsecured claims.
|
|||||
| R.I. Fishermen's Alliance, Inc. v. R.I. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., No. 08-2390,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not logically possible for lobstermen challenging a lobster-trap allocation regulations as a violation of R.I. Gen. Laws ¿ 20-2.1-9 to prevail without affirmatively answering the embedded question of whether federal law expressly required the use of retroactive control dates. Thus, there was federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1331.
|
|||||
| United States v. Catalan-Roman, Nos. 06-1182, 06-1183,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for carrying firearm in furtherance of armed robbery under 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) was lesser included offense of his conviction under ¿ 924(j), as it did not require proof of any fact not required for conviction under ¿ 924(j), and thus was reversed for violating Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause.
|
|||||
| Weaver's Cove Energy, LLC v. R.I. Coastal Res. Mgmt., No. 08-2440,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 26, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rhode Island resource council's concurrence with an energy company's dredging plans was conclusively presumed under 16 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1456(c)(3)(A) because a letter certifying acceptance of dredged material was not information the company had to submit. Assent process utilized by Rhode Island collided with FERC's delegated authority and was preempted.
|
|||||
| Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., No. 09-1284,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 27, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A discovery order to unseal pages of a deposition which defendant claimed contained confidential material did not meet the importance requirement for review under the collateral order doctrine. There was no legal issue presented and the decisions involved fact-bound controversies about a matter with which the district court was most familiar.
|
|||||
| Nulankeyutmonen Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson, No. 08-2122,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 28, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A remand order was clear that exhaustion was required unless excused, and any request that the mandate be reconsidered should have been made by a timely petition for rehearing; when the court's mandate issued, it established the law of the case. In the absence of blatant error or serious injustice, the court would not reconsider its prior decision.
|
|||||
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. |
