 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Broadley v. Mashpee Neck Marina, Inc., No. 05-2822,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In personal injury action under admiralty law, decision reforming a marina's broad exculpatory clause was reversed because, due to extreme overbreadth of the clause and the plainness of its illegality, the boilerplate character of the contract, lack of negotiation, and absence of explicit reference to negligence, invalidity was a more just result.
|
|||||
| Engelhardt v. S.P. Richards Co., No. 06-1232,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was ineligible for FMLA benefits because subsidiary employed fewer than 50 people within 75 miles of the facility where she worked, and subsidiary and its parent were not integrated entities under the test set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 825.104(c)(2). Thus, the employee was not an eligible employee under 29 C.F.R. § 825.110(a)(3).
|
|||||
| First Marblehead Corp. v. House, No. 06-1114,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony that the employer had notice regarding its failure to disclose an important term of the options and the employer's acknowledged failure to disclose that information to the employee were more than sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding negligent misrepresentation through failure to disclose.
|
|||||
| Maine People's Alliance v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., No. 05-2331,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it found that environmental interest groups had standing under 42 U.S.C.S. § 6972(a)(1)(B) to sue corporations that operated plant on Penobscot River (Maine), or when it ordered one of the corporations to pay for study to determine if mercury contamination downriver presented endangerment to health or environment.
|
|||||
| Mooney v. Mooney, No. 06-1118,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Abstention order was affirmed in diversity action seeking rescission or cancellation of parties' marital separation agreement because, if former husband was representing in Massachusetts Probate Court that the separation agreement remained valid, he could not obtain equitable relief on the basis of a contrary position in his federal court action.
|
|||||
| United States v. Chapman, No. 05-2752,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 40-month sentence for violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was affirmed because district court considered 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, mulled the various proffers made by defendant in mitigation, and gave defendant a sentence far below USSG range. The issue of the constitutionality of defendant's earlier deportation proceeding was waived.
|
|||||
| United States v. Simo-Lopez, No. 05-2656,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's six month sentence under P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 33, § 4032 (1983) was decisive proof that he was convicted of misdemeanor aggravated battery and thus, defendant's aggravated battery conviction could not have been treated as a felony in calculating his sentence or deemed a felony for purposes of USSG § 2L1.2.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vargas, No. 05-2826,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for crimes including making a false statement in passport application, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1542, was affirmed because, pursuant to Fed. Evid. 702, the district court properly admitted expert testimony identifying defendant as someone other than the person listed on the passport application on the basis of fingerprint analysis.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ziskind, Nos. 04-2076, 04-2579,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, December 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Apart from 36-month term of supervised release, sentences for theft from an interstate shipment and conspiracy to steal from an interstate shipment were affirmed because, under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 3663A, 3664, judicial determination of the loss amount underlying restitution orders was constitutionally permissible.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
