 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Constructora Andrade Gutierrez, S.A. v. Am. Int'l Ins. Co., No. 05-2303,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A surety was properly granted summary judgment as to its indemnity claim against a debtor under P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 4911, because the indemnity agreement clearly and unequivocally required the debtor to indemnify the surety upon the surety's good faith payment on the bond; the debtor's breach of contract claim was subject to arbitration.
|
|||||
| Thore v. Howe, No. 06-1627,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for police officers in a driver's action alleging excessive force and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 was affirmed because the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the doctrine of judicial estoppel barred the driver from asserting facts inconsistent with those admitted in a related guilty plea colloquy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hernandez, No. 06-1027,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 188-month sentence, rather than the 180-month minimum under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(a)(1), 924(e), was affirmed because the district court expressly considered each of the mitigating factors proffered by defendant, but concluded that they were outweighed by other relevant factors.
|
|||||
| United States v. Thomas, No. 04-2386,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for possessing and importing illegal narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1) and 952(a), were affirmed because on appeal, when the case was cast in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence exposed an inexplicable inconsistency between the government's proof and defendant's testimony as to lack of knowledge.
|
|||||
| Wijaya v. Gonzales, No. 06-1431,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of the denial of asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3)(A) was denied because a wife and her husband did not show past persecution or a reasonable fear of future persecution in Indonesia based on the wife's Christian religion and Chinese ethnicity.
|
|||||
| United States v. Edelkind, Nos. 05-2125, 05-2228,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for four counts of bank fraud directed against federally insured banks, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 1344, was affirmed because there was no prejudicial error in the verdict form used and the evidence of defrauding a federally insured entity was sufficient to support a conviction on the fourth count.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 05-1444,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 31, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 05-1444,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, October 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The government's action against farmers under § 301 and § 502 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.S. §§ 1311 and 1342, was remanded so that the parties had an opportunity to develop their positions in the district court with an awareness of the jurisdictional standards applied by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rapanos v. United States.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
