1st Circuit Court of Appeals, November, 2008, 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 - November 5 - November 7, 2008

Campos-Gomez v. Mukasey, Nos. 07-1514, 07-1916, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: It was previously found that under Rhode Island law there could be no assault without the presence of physical force. Thus, a conviction for simple assault under R.I. Gen. Laws ? 11-5-3 satisfied the statutory definition of a crime of violence, and an alien was removable based on his assault conviction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. ? 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

Search Cases for Free

Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. IDC Props., No. 08-1130, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: A title insurance policy was properly declared null and void due to an insured's material representations because had the insurer known about threatened litigation against the insured, it would not have issued the policy. The insured made affirmative representations about the subject and could not then fail to speak to qualify its statements.

Search Cases for Free

Parker v. Gerrish, No. 08-1045, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Officer's Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law was properly denied in excessive force case because videotaped encounter demonstrated that arrestee was largely compliant. When considering whether it was reasonable for officer to fire his Taser, jury could have turned to testimony about strong incapacitating effect of Taser.

Search Cases for Free

United States v. Ford, No. 07-2613, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where defendant was questioned by officers while walking, suppression was not warranted, because he was not seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment protections before he disclosed that he was in possession of a firearm; under 18 U.S.C.S. ?? 921 and 922, the gun fell under the statutory definition of "firearm" even though it was inoperable.

Search Cases for Free

Mogel v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 08-1334, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 6, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Court erred in granting an insurer's motion to dismiss life insurance beneficiaries' suit for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA because a "security account" was no more than an IOU that did not transfer funds to which beneficiaries were entitled out of plan assets; insurer remained fiduciary under 29 U.S.C.S. ? 1002(21)(A) with respect to funds.

Search Cases for Free

SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, No. 08-1512, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 6, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In a case in which plaintiffs sued town under 42 U.S.C.S. ? 1983 for violating their equal protection rights by wrongfully singling them out for adverse treatment, district court erred in dismissing complaint for failure to state claim, where complaint did not disclose any facts that would have served as rational basis for difference in treatment.

Search Cases for Free

United States v. Ganun, No. 08-1416, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Wagner & Wagner Auto Sales, Inc. v. Land Rover N. Am., Inc., No. 08-1456, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Though an auto dealer contended that a distributor violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93B, ? 3 when it terminated the parties' dealership agreement, summary judgment was properly entered for the dealer as the agreement called for the building of a new facility, which did not occur, there was no bad faith, and the dealer was offered opportunities to cure.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal