 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. AFGE AFI-CIO, No. 05-2648,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 1, 2006
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal for lack of venue was affirmed because, for purposes of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1391, neither defendant resided in the forum state, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim had not occurred there, and neither defendant had offices, local unions, or employees in the state to subject it to personal jurisdiction there.
|
|||||
| Hai Ning Zhang v. Gonzales, No. 05-2460,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien could not pursue his equitable tolling argument because he did not raise it before the BIA. He presented no other legal basis to excuse the untimeliness of his motion to reopen. Finally, even had the motion been timely filed, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a, the BIA still did not abuse its discretion in denying it.
|
|||||
| Nyambi v. Gonzales, No. 05-2692,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review was denied because inconsistencies in his testimony reached to the heart of his claims, the IJ gave additional reasons for her adverse credibility finding, and a fully supported adverse credibility determination, without more, could sustain a denial of asylum.
|
|||||
| Pratt v. GMAC (In re Pratt), No. 05-2453,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Creditor's refusal to release its lien on debtors' inoperable "surrendered" vehicle, while not in bad faith, was objectively coercive, effectively amounted to a demand for "reaffirmation" without compliance with the stringent "anti-coercion" requirements of 11 U.S.C.S. § 524(c), and constituted a willful violation of the discharge injunction.
|
|||||
| Beaudette v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., No. 05-2685,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Expert testimony on the existence of manufacturing defects in a ladder was properly found inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because the expert lacked a sufficient basis for his opinion. A Daubert hearing on the admissibility of the expert's opinion was correctly conducted, and the expert knew of no testing or literature supporting his opinion.
|
|||||
| Benetti v. Barnhart, No. 05-2890,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Betancur Lopez v. Gonzales, No. 05-2092,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of the denial of asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) was affirmed because an alien failed to establish past persecution where the record did not compel a finding that Colombian guerrillas' demands that the alien join their forces, and their economic extortion, rose to the level of persecution.
|
|||||
| United States v. Segalla, No. 05-2031,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a gun under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) was affirmed because it was adequately explained and substantively reasonable in light of the factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), and the trial court took into account each of the mitigating factors brought to its attention but found them unpersuasive.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
