 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Happ v. Corning, Inc., No. 06-1324,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a director was covered by indemnification provisions using the language of Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 145(a), and he was found liable for insider trading, defendants were properly awarded repayment of advances because the director's duress claim failed since defendants' insistence on an undertaking to repay was not unlawful or wrongful.
|
|||||
| Olszewski v. Spencer, No. 05-1833,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of habeas relief to an inmate was affirmed because the inmate's constitutional rights were not violated by the destruction of an exculpatory witness statement prior to trial, by allegedly improper statements made by a prosecutor during closing arguments, or by the trial court's dismissal of a sitting juror based on ex parte communications.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jahagirdar, No. 05-2270,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant placed his hand inside the underpants of a napping woman on a flight, his sexual abuse conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2242(2) was upheld because, inter alia, penetration of the labia majora was sufficient for conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2246(2)(C), and her statements to a trooper were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B).
|
|||||
| United States v. Paulino-Serrano, No. 05-2494,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for conspiring to possess heroin with intent to distribute it was affirmed because his plea was valid under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. The plea contained all elements of the offense charged, and the magistrate judge properly determined that defendant understood that the charges were supported by the government's evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rivera Rangel, No. 05-2042,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for extortion under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1951 was affirmed because a mistrial on the grounds that a government witness invoked his privilege against self-incrimination was properly denied since defendant's right to confrontation was not violated in that the cross-examination concerned the collateral matter of impeaching the witness.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sepulveda-Contreras, No. 04-1409,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to be present at sentencing was violated when supervised release conditions were imposed for the first time in the written judgment without being orally announced at sentencing because they were not mandatory, standard, or recommended conditions under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3 and he lacked constructive notice.
|
|||||
| Mass. Nurses Ass'n v. N. Adams Reg'l Hosp., No. 05-2799,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Union's action against hospital pursuant to 29 U.S.C.S. § 185, seeking enforcement of the cease-and-desist portion of a prior arbitration decision, was unsuccessful because the union could not show beyond argument that there was no material factual difference between a new dispute for which suit was brought and that decided in prior arbitration.
|
|||||
| Xiang Xing Gao v. Gonzales, No. 05-2330,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien from China alleged that his wife was forcibly sterilized and he suffered religious persecution, his asylum petition was properly denied under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101 and 1158 because, inter alia, none of the documents were authenticated and he provided inconsistent testimony regarding his reasons for departing China and key dates.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
