 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jian Hua Xia v. Gonzales, 06-2128-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kola v. Gonzales, 06-4663-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cordes & Co. Fin. Servs. v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., Docket No. 06-2143-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Eli Lilly do Brasil, Ltda v. Fed. Express Corp., Docket No. 06-0530-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a shipper's suit for recovery of a stolen shipment, summary judgment in favor of a carrier based on application of U.S. law was upheld because the U.S. had a more significant relationship with the parties and the contract than did Brazil, particularly as U.S. law presumed the enforceability of the contract and upheld the parties' expectations.
|
|||||
| Foreman v. United States, No. 05-6800-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly denied 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651 coram nobis relief based on ineffective assistance because his counsel properly advised him to withdraw fabricated allegations, properly investigated his case, and properly advised him of the consequences of his plea, and there was no evidence to justify a six year delay in seeking this relief.
|
|||||
| Maiwand v. Gonzales, Docket No. 05-6055-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appellate court lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2) to review the BIA's denial of CAT relief and waiver of inadmissibility under former 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(c) (repealed) for an Afghani alien, and although the alien entered the U.S. as a refugee, the BIA was not required to cancel his refugee status before ordering his removal.
|
|||||
| Pierre v. Gonzales, Docket No. 05-3260-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Haitian alien was denied CAT relief because he failed to show that the substandard prison conditions in Haiti, that he would be subjected to upon deportation, amounted to a specific intent to inflict pain and suffering, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(5), or that he was likely to be subjected to torture due to his particular medical condition.
|
|||||
| Ping Chen v. United States AG, Docket No. 06-3594-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Chinese alien was not entitled to a petition for review challenging the denial of her motion to reissue a decision of the BIA, which upheld an IJ's denial of her asylum claim and ordered her removed, because there was substantial evidence supporting the BIA's finding that the BIA's order was correctly mailed to the alien's address of record.
|
|||||
| Zhi Da v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, No. 06-3072-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, September 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
