 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Elkin v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (In re Shkolnikov), No. 06-9003,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where creditors appeal from the denial of a motion to sell was dismissed for lack of standing, the insurer had no right to appeal from the bankruptcy appellate panel's (BAP) decision in its favor, because the insurer's dissatisfaction with the BAP's statement could not confer a right to appeal upon the insurer as a successful litigant.
|
|||||
| Forcier v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 06-1088,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the absence of a specific beneficiary designation, the ERISA covered insurance policy afforded the insurance company broad discretion in making benefit determinations. Given the insurance company's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22, the court succeeded to that authority and its allocation of policy proceeds fell well within that discretion.
|
|||||
| Murphy v. Comm'r, No. 06-1109,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a taxpayer offered $ 10,000 to settle his $ 250,000 income tax liability, the IRS did not abuse its discretion in declining to accept his proposed compromise under 26 U.S.C.S. § 6330, because an appeals officer calculated that he could offer to pay $ 82,164 to settle his liability and he never explained why the calculations were unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Naeem v. Gonzales, No. 05-2789,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The decision of the BIA that an alien's failure to depart within the prescribed period rendered him statutorily ineligible for the relief he sought was affirmed because the alien fell squarely within the language of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229c(d)(1); the alien had a full and fair opportunity to seek a stay to prevent the period's running but did not do so.
|
|||||
| Freightliner LLC v. P.R. Truck Sales, Inc., No. 06-1040,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' appeal from the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction was moot because the district court dismissed defendants' counterclaim under P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10, § 278, and once the counterclaims no longer existed defendants had no recourse in the district court even if the denial of their motion had been reversed.
|
|||||
| Perez-Colon v. Camacho, No. 06-1560,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment dismissing a complaint seeking the return of $ 3,000 in cash seized from a claimant was vacated and remand was ordered because the district court was required to make a finding as to the precise nature of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's interest in the claimant's money, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g).
|
|||||
| United States v. Bennett, No. 06-1167,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The "other buildings" element of defendant's predicate offense under R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-8-5 fit within the definition of generic burglary for purposes of enhancement under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e); because the law was not clear as to the "unlawful or unprivileged" element, any error by the district court was not obvious and, therefore, not plain.
|
|||||
| United States v. Spagnuolo, No. 03-2312,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it denied defendant's request to add Counts 2 and 4 of indictment to motion he filed asking the court to dismiss Counts 1 and 3 of the indictment, based on his claim that U.S. Government violated speedy indictment provision of the Speedy Trial Act, because request was made after date court set for filing the motion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
