1st Circuit Court of Appeals, October, 2009, Federal Case law

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!

Federal Courts - 1st Circuit Court of Appeals - October 23 - October 28, 2009

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

United States v. Correa-Alicea, Nos. 08-1124, 08-1125, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 27, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal