 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. v. Herman, No. 06-1722,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 was properly granted for an insurer because a misrepresentation that an income verification statement was prepared by a CPA was made with the actual intent to deceive and, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175, § 186, the insurer was not required to show that the misrepresentation increased its risk of loss.
|
|||||
| United States v. Trinidad-Rodriguez, No. 06-1045,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's within-guidelines sentence was affirmed because it was clear that district court considered "now-advisory" guidelines sentencing range and18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors; record showed that district court pondered factors cited by defendant but came to different, yet altogether plausible, conclusion as to their salience.
|
|||||
| Governor Wentworth Reg'l Sch. Dist. v. Hendrickson, No. 06-1652,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in a declaratory judgment action, brought to determine the lawfulness of the suspension of a student due to his continued wearing of a provocative anti-Nazi patch at school, was vacated because the student's graduation mooted an appeal by the student's parents. The collateral consequences were too speculative to support a claim.
|
|||||
| Abreu v. United States, No. 05-1889,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suit under FTCA, 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, was properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Navy's actions were in compliance with the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.S. §§ 1251-1357, the RCRA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 6901 et seq., and the Noise Control Act, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 4901-4918, and the discretionary function exception applied.
|
|||||
| ITI Holdings, Inc. v. Odom, No. 06-1616,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court's earlier holding that strict enforcement of D. Me. R. 7(b) created no impermissible conflict with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) applied with equal force to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and a "response" in the form of a venue transfer motion did not comply with D. Me. R. 7(b); thus, granting the motion as unopposed was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Jordan v. Reilly, No. 06-1321,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of inmate's habeas petition was affirmed because inmate had not shown, as required by 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(d)(1),(2), that the state court's decision that incriminating statements he made to police were properly admitted was contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law, or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. Beninato, No. 05-2748,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because language in a warrant stating, "see attached affidavit," sufficed to incorporate the affidavit and the affidavit contained information that provided cross-corroboration of three anonymous tips, and a reasonable officer in defendants' shoes could have believed that the warrant was sufficient.
|
|||||
| SEC v. Rocklage, No. 06-1571,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a wife obtained inside information from her husband regarding his company and informed her brother, the wife's pre-tip disclosure to her husband that she intended to tip-off her brother did not negate liability under the misappropriation theory of insider trading under 15 U.S.C.S. § 78j(b), because her overall scheme was still deceptive.
|
|||||
| United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, No. 05-2374,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By failing to object to a presentence investigation (PSI) report, defendant had waived this argument that his prior conviction under P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 24, § 2401 was not necessarily a drug trafficking offense that could serve to increase his offense level for illegal reentry under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
