 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bayonne v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 05-1065,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Administrative record contained sufficient evidence to support ERISA administrator's conclusion that plaintiff was not totally disabled within Plan's definition as she was capable of performing her tasks as cashier. This was true even assuming she experienced all symptoms she reported. Thus, administrator did not act arbitrarily or capriciously.
|
|||||
| Chuan Kai Chen v. Gonzales, No. 04-1780-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As omissions and inconsistencies in testimony of an alien and his witnesses about an alleged forced abortion were not minor discrepancies that were immaterial to the alien's persecution claim, the immigration judge properly used them as a basis for an adverse credibility ruling and denied the alien's asylum application.
|
|||||
| Elfand v. United States, 05-0071-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because petitioner's car, which had been seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration, was sold and was therefore unavailable, his claim under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) and 5 U.S.C.S. § 702 for reimbursement based on the value of the car constituted a request for money damages, which was barred by sovereign immunity.
|
|||||
| Gjoka v. INS, No. 04-1744-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA agreed with IJ's finding that alien failed to meet his burden of proof, but rejected some of IJ's subsidiary credibility findings. As BIA's decision prevented adequate review because it did not specify which of IJ's reasons it found to be based impermissibly on speculation and conjecture, order denying asylum was vacated and case was remanded.
|
|||||
| Kasongo v. Gonzales, No. 04-0702-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of BIA's decision upholding IJ's order of removal was granted because adverse credibility determination lacked support; discrepancy between words "beat" and "rape" to describe what happened to immigrant's wife's was isolated and explained by immigrant's emotional fragile state and classic presentation of PTSD.
|
|||||
| Monroe v. Kuhlman, Docket No. 03-3703,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was granted 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas relief on claim that his right to judicial supervision was violated by allowing a jury to view evidence while the trial was adjourned. Application of the contemporaneous objection rule was not an adequate and independent bar to habeas review because such a claim was not usually required to be preserved.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, 05-1174-cr, 05-2353-cr, 05-2697-cr, 05-3422-cr, 05-2293-cr, 05-3971-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' sentences were affirmed where, while the district court should have vacated one of the defendants' sentence and resentenced her, the error was harmless in light of the district court's explanation of why the original sentence continued to be most appropriate one, and defendants' Sixth Amendment argument was foreclosed by prior caselaw.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
