 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Casillas-Diaz v. Officer Romualdo Palau, No. 04-1303,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action against police officers for use of excessive force, a district court's ratification of the jury's liability verdict did not constitute an abuse of discretion, and the amount of punitive damages awarded was not beyond the outer limit of what may have been reasonably necessary to punish the offenders and deter others.
|
|||||
| McCarthy v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., No. 06-1001,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's ruling vacating an arbitration award was vacated because its analysis finding legal error was proscribed by the standards of review that applied in the First Circuit to a district court's review of arbitration awards. The award of the arbitration panel was not in manifest disregard of the law or in violation of 9 U.S.C.S. § 10.
|
|||||
| United States v. Colon-Nales, No. 05-1702,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's finding at sentencing that serious bodily injury, a rape, occurred during a carjacking was plain error; but, the judicial fact-finding was not a structural error that obviated the need to show prejudice, and defendant did not show that it affected his substantial rights by showing but for the error, the outcome would have changed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jones, No. 05-2432,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 108-month sentence for distributing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) was affirmed because a factual finding that the substance involved was "crack cocaine" was amply supported by the record, the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence, and the sentence was not unreasonably high.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez, No. 05-2593,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in imposing guideline-range sentence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(b) (2004) because district court recognized that it was not bound to sentence defendant within guideline range but found application of career offender guideline appropriate based on defendant's lengthy criminal history.
|
|||||
| In re Vazquez-Botet, No. 06-2230,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner, a criminal defendant, was not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the recusal of the district court judge assigned to the case under 28 U.S.C.S. § 455(b) as there was no showing that the judge, by virtue of the fact that his wife had previously represented a coconspirator, had a financial interest in the case.
|
|||||
| Peguero-Moronta v. Santiago, No. 04-2589,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In this § 1983 action for wrongful termination, the judgment in favor of the officials was vacated; prior to the change in administrations, all three employees had uneventful probationary periods with only positive evaluations and the officials presented no evidence that they were conducting final evaluations of all probationary employees.
|
|||||
| United States v. Coplin, No. 05-2077,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, September 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for firearms and drug charges was affirmed because there was no error in district court's denial of defendant's suppression motion, its regulation of cross-examination, or its imposition of sentence. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers' reasonable suspicion, based on a plausible but mistaken view of the facts, justified a Terry stop.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
