 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alibeaj v. Gonzales, No. 06-1338,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Review of the affirmance of denial of an alien's asylum application was denied because the alien failed to prove her status as a "refugee," pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B)(i), and the government rebutted any presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by proving that circumstances in Albania had changed fundamentally.
|
|||||
| Cordi-Allen v. Halloran, No. 06-1664,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clients' claim for breach of contract failed since the attorney's addendum was simply a waiver of any additional fees to be charged by him in the workers' compensation case and there was nothing in the language that could have been read to overrule the standards of Conn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16 and bind the attorney to the clients in perpetuity.
|
|||||
| Hong Mei Zhang v. Gonzales, No. 05-2836,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court of appeals dismissed an alien's petition for review because it lacked jurisdiction. The alien's last-minute motion to reopen was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Thus, the BIA and the IJ had plenary discretion to determine whether to grant the motion to reopen sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
|
|||||
| In re City of Fall River, No. 06-2310,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for mandamus to compel the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue regulations that a city and state attorneys general (AGs) said were required by statute was denied because the city and AGs could not explain why the use of conventional means for obtaining judicial review was inadequate.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mueffelman, No. 05-2616,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction and sentence for 13 counts of mail fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 1341 were affirmed because indictment adequately charged a series of false statements, and conviction on that basis did not constitute a "constructive amendment" of indictment. Disparity between defendant's sentence and that of a codefendant who pled guilty was proper.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pelletier, No. 06-1287,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the holding that a violation of the "knock and announce" rule in the course of executing a search warrant did not justify suppression of evidence subsequently discovered applied in the context of an arrest warrant, the district court properly refused to order suppression based upon the officers' violation of the knock and announce rule.
|
|||||
| United States v. Teague, No. 05-1789,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, November 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prior Texas conviction for endangerment of a child did not constitute a predicate crime of violence for purposes of 28 U.S.C.S. § 994(h). Because defendant was sentenced within the range that would have applied if he were not a career offender and the district court carefully explained its reasons for the sentence, the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| Barreto-Rosa v. Varona-Mendez, No. 05-2749,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The waiver exception to res judicata did not apply because the implicit consent justifying the exception was not present where plaintiff was fully aware of defendants' objection to the claim splitting and defendants' failure to object at a hearing on plaintiff's motion to dismiss in the first case did not constitute consent.
|
|||||
| Gill v. United States, No. 06-1711,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A couple's FTCA tort claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not certain that the Secretary of Labor would have found that the husband was not a federal employee or denied the claims for emotional damages under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA); thus, the FECA's exclusivity provisions barred the FTCA claims.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gaffney, No. 05-1735,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied defendant's request for more time to explore possibility of finding another privately retained attorney because there was no violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and, viewed as a denial of a request for a continuance of a change of plea hearing, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
