 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Matthews v. Cordeiro, No. 05-1041,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner's beating claim against the prison officials was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies because the claim arose after the PLRA was enacted and the practice of referring claims of excessive force directly to the superintendent evidenced an available administrative remedy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Deppe, No. 07-1048,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence on 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1341, 1343 fraud counts were upheld because an inarticulate juror question, followed by supplemental trial court admonishments, did not provide meaningful evidence of jury confusion; further, defendant, based on his trial conduct, was rightly denied an acceptance of responsibility reduction.
|
|||||
| Alcantara v. Astrue, No. 07-1056,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ's finding that claimant was employable, under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, was not supported by substantial evidence as, inter alia, ALJ could not give non-examining consultant's opinion any significant weight as it was opinion of reviewing consultant, based on significantly incomplete record, and it was not well justified under 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d).
|
|||||
| Cambridge Literary Props. v. W. Goebel Porzellanfabrik G.m.b.H. & Co. Kg., No. 06-2339,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim for accounting by assignee of putative co-authoriship rights in literary work was barred by copyright limitations period of 17 U.S.C.S. § 507(b), since action improperly assumed prerequisite and disputed issue of copyright ownership which was matter of federal copyright law, and action was clearly time-barred under federal law.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mousli, No. 06-2079,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of possessing counterfeit securities under 18 U.S.C.S. § 472 where evidence at trial showed that although the quality of the alleged counterfeit bills was poor, they could have passed as valid U.S. currency, and a reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant had the intent to defraud.
|
|||||
| Sullivan v. City of Augusta, No. 06-1177,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Portions of city's parade permit ordinance violated the First Amendment because, in part, 30-day advance application provision, as drafted, was longer than necessary to meet essential needs for traffic control and other public safety aspects. However, no indigency exception to the permit fee was required, in light of alternatives to street marches.
|
|||||
| Mariani-Colon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 06-2468,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee alleged that he was discriminated and retaliated against in violation of Title VII, his case was properly summarily dismissed as his statements about his on-the-job experiences were only speculative, failing to show pretext; further, the temporal proximity between his discrimination complaints and termination did not show pretext.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
