 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pelletier v. Main St. Textiles, LP, No. 05-2797,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err during personal injury action which employee filed against company that hired his employer to move textile equipment when it limited testimony by employee's expert because there was no evidence that expert visited mill where employee was injured and proffered testimony was largely immaterial to issues jury had to resolve.
|
|||||
| Onwuamaegbu v. Gonzales, No. 05-1181,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an IJ failed to pinpoint with sufficient clarity a precise rationale for denying a waiver of removability under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(h) to a lawful permanent resident (LPR), and because the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ's decision, the court lacked an adequate basis upon which to determine if the BIA properly denied reconsideration to the LPR.
|
|||||
| United States v. Milkiewicz, No. 06-1192,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's fraud conviction was upheld because district court appropriately allowed the jury to consider the government's summary charts during its deliberations under Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 703, although prior introduction of the underlying documents would not have barred the district court from admitting the summaries under Fed. R. Evid. 1006.
|
|||||
| Vars v. Citrin, No. 06-1043,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary dismissal of licensees' § 1983 due process violations was affirmed because the licensees failed to show a due process violation inasmuch as they were accorded full process in license revocation proceedings and they were without a right or interest on which to base a due process claim after their license expired and it was terminated.
|
|||||
| Alsamhouri v. Gonzales, No. 05-2800,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 7, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Caldwell Tanks, Inc. v. Haley & Ward, Inc., No. 06-1697,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment, which pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) vacated a jury verdict for an engineer on its counterclaim against a general contractor, was vacated because Massachusetts law did not require explicit language to enforce indemnity agreements in inter se litigation, and the indemnity clause of parties' contract permitted the recovery of its costs.
|
|||||
| Green v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. 06-1452,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied the children's claim under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(3) for equitable relief on the ground that delay in furnishing the insurance forms was a breach of fiduciary duty where sending the forms within a week or so after employment, where no promise or plan deadline was violated, did not comprise unreasonable conduct.
|
|||||
| Calvi v. Knox County, No. 06-1843,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for defendants was affirmed in a § 1983 action because D. Me. R. 56(b) and (c), like Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 itself, did not violate the Seventh Amendment; excessive force was not used in handcuffing and booking plaintiff; and claims first discussed in opposition to the summary judgment motion had not been properly pleaded.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez-Pena, No. 06-1679,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3582(c) was properly denied because amendment adding application note to USSG § 3B1.1, which stated that an upward adjustment was appropriate only if a defendant managed one or more other participants in crime, did not qualify defendant for reduction. Defendant's record indicated such management.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
