 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fonten Corp. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., No. 04-2120, No. 04-2121,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit asserting violation of a settlement agreement, district court's judgment and denial of plaintiff corporations' motion for a new trial were affirmed because the mere presence at trial of attorney who represented defendant in settlement negotiations was not prejudicial to corporations. The court refused to expand the unsworn witness rule.
|
|||||
| In re Grand Jury Proceedings, No. 06-2125,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation president, who along with the corporation was under an investigation by a grand jury, was not entitled to intervene in the proceedings as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) because the corporation president, in his personal capacity, lacked standing to assert the corporation's interest.
|
|||||
| Jelmoli Holding, Inc. v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., No. 05-1903,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee gave checks drawn on the employer's bank account to a broker for his account with a brokerage firm and the employer was awarded damages, a new trial was warranted because, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, §§ 1-201(27) and 3-307, the jury instructions for the holder in due course doctrine and the broker's knowledge were erroneous.
|
|||||
| Ofori v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 06-1651,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for "clarification" (construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). Plaintiff could only prevail in setting aside original judgment if he could show "exceptional circumstances" entitling him to "extraordinary relief," and "clarification" failed to meet this exacting standard.
|
|||||
| United States v. Allen, No. 05-2705,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was arrested for driving to endanger and convicted on drug charges under 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841 and 846, the search of a bag in the rear storage area of his sport utility vehicle was valid incident to his arrest under the Fourth Amendment because the rear storage area was clearly reachable without exiting the vehicle.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cormier, No. 05-2000,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant robbed drug dealers, his drug and weapons convictions under 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841 and 846 and 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922 and 924 were upheld because, inter alia, there was sufficient evidence of his intent to distribute some of the stolen drugs and a federal agent properly testified as to the interstate nexus element of the firearms offenses.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hood, No. 05-2849,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal alleging violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3161 et seq., was unsuccessful because the district court did not err in excluding an additional seven days on account of appointed defense counsel's motion to withdraw. Thus, there could have been no more than 63 non-excludable days prior to defendant's motion to dismiss.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rolfsema, No. 05-2898,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252(a)(4)(B), his sentence was upheld because, inter alia, the five-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.4(b)(5)(D) for the possession of 600 or more images was applied properly rather than the two-level enhancement under § 2G2.4(b)(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
