 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Edwards v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 07-1414,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hunter could not recover against safety harness manufacturer's insurer under Maine's reach and apply statute, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24-A, § 2904 (2000), because evidence was inadequate to prove timely notice was given under claims-made policy, and occurrence policy excluded coverage for injuries arising out of use of safety harnesses on a tree.
|
|||||
| Rincon-Bedoya v. Keisler, No. 06-2785,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA's denial of the alien's application for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231 was affirmed where the adverse credibility determination was fully supportable because the alien's statements about material matters were markedly inconsistent at crucial points, and without his testimony, his claim for withholding of removal foundered.
|
|||||
| Local 791, UFCW v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., No. 06-2405,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that the CBA's process for resolution of grievances arising under the side agreements precluded judicial determination under the LMRA was affirmed because the plain meaning of the CBA and the parties' intent was to require resolution of the dispute between the corporation and the union under the grievance process rather than by a lawsuit.
|
|||||
| Teti v. Bender, No. 06-2371,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition was denied because, although the relationship between § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1)--both of which applied to state court fact determinations--was not entirely clear, under either subsection the state court's decision was not unreasonable in light of the record before it.
|
|||||
| Wunderlich v. Moran (In re Wunderlich), BAP No. NH 07-010,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision of the bankruptcy court granting summary judgment and denying a debtor a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 727(a)(2) was affirmed because there was evidence that the debtor failed to disclose the terms of a second mortgage in an effort to defraud or hinder payment to the judgment creditor. Debtor's evidence of a mistake was speculative.
|
|||||
| United States ex rel. Rost v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 06-2627,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Action was not barred by 31 U.S.C.S. § 3730(e)(4) since the corporation made confidential disclosures to the government, which triggered an investigation, and the statute did not bar jurisdiction over qui tam actions based on disclosures of allegations to the government; it did so only for actions based on qualifying disclosures made to the public.
|
|||||
| United States v. Arango, No. 06-1318, No. 06-1319,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentences were affirmed in spite of alleged failure to explain sentences under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(c) because sentencing judge sufficiently revealed reasons against the backdrop of lengthy evidentiary hearing, acquiescence to government's recommendation from one defendant, downward departure for second defendant, and no challenge to reasonableness.
|
|||||
| Skirchak v. Dynamics Research Corp., Nos. 06-2136, 06-2180,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Striking of the class action waiver on unconscionability grounds under state law and under the FAA was upheld where the statutorily created interest in class actions, even assuming it was waivable, was sufficiently strong that Massachusetts law would have found that the waiver resulted in oppression and unfair surprise to the disadvantaged party.
|
|||||
| United States v. Andujar-Arias, No. 06-1189,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not commit legal error when it declined to adjust defendant's sentence on the basis of fast-track disparities since disparities resulting from fast-track programs were warranted and could not have been considered by a district judge in sentencing as a basis for a variance from a U.S.S.G. sentence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)(6).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
