 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Benitez-Garcia v. Gonzalez-Vega, No. 06-1026,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of civil rights case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) was reversed because plaintiffs had not repeatedly flouted court orders, failure to meet deadlines many months before trial was not a case of extreme misconduct warranting dismissal, and district court did not appear to have considered the necessity for the most severe sanction.
|
|||||
| Orelien v. Gonzales, No. 06-1085,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner alien failed to show either past persecution or a plausible basis for fear of future persecution, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily failed, and as for his CAT claim, he proffered no evidence to show that he would have been tortured at the hands of the Haitian government if he returned to Haiti.
|
|||||
| Velez v. Janssen Ortho, LLC, No.05-2721,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To establish an adverse employment action on a claim of retaliatory failure-to-hire, an employee needed to show that she applied for a particular position, but her general letter of interest was not an application for a discrete job under 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-3(a) and Puerto Rico law; thus, her former employer was entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Am. Home Assur. Co. v. AGM Marine Contrs., Inc., No. 05-2310,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In affirming summary judgment for an insurer, the court concluded that coverage for docks damaged in a storm was barred under a "damage to assured's work" exclusion to a commercial general liability policy; the real property exception to the exclusion did not apply because the docks did not comprise real property under Massachusetts law.
|
|||||
| Nisselson v. Lernout, No. 05-1774,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court properly dismissed, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a bankruptcy trustee's complaint, which included federal securities and racketeering and state fraud claims, because the affirmative defense of the in pari delicto doctrine barred the claims. The company through which the trustee claimed was implicated in alleged fraud.
|
|||||
| O'Callaghan v. Shirazi, No. 06-1349,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No extraordinary circumstance warranted relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) and (6), and allowing the motion would have resulted in significant prejudice. A prior judgment was not void under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) because the district court had original jurisdiction and the exercise of its authority did not result in a due process violation.
|
|||||
| Santos-Ortiz v. Beal Bank (In re Rosado-Ortiz), No. 06-1617,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A bank, which was a servicing agent, was a secured creditor with standing to make a claim against the debtors' bankruptcy estate. The unusual facts of Crefisa, Inc. v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., were inapplicable because the debtors before the court were parties to and signatories of the underlying instruments that allowed a loan transfer.
|
|||||
| United States v. Arizmendi-Serrano, No. 05-2131,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the record was sufficiently developed, the court considered defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits and rejected it. Defendant clearly failed to show prejudice from counsel's error because he did not argue that, absent counsel's error about his criminal history, he would not have pled guilty and gone to trial.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fanfan, No. 05-1826,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's cocaine conspiracy-related conviction and sentence were affirmed because post-conspiracy bad act evidence was properly admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 404, and although crack cocaine was not formally part of conspiracy, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a) required its consideration as part of the same course of conduct.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
