 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. Johnson, Docket No. 04-5564-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Environmental Protection Agency was not required to propose a rule for the testing of a chemical under 15 U.S.C.S. § 2603(a) because the agency did not make the functional equivalent of formal findings when it reviewed summaries of the toxicity data in connection with the High Production Volume Chemical Program and gave various statements.
|
|||||
| Rui Fang Zou v. Gonzales, No. 04-1672-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the inconsistencies that the IJ relied upon in making the adverse credibility determination involved matters central to the alien's claim (the alien's alleged forced abortion), they were sufficient to sustain the IJ's adverse credibility finding despite the IJ's improper speculations concerning other matters.
|
|||||
| Tarin v. Gonzales, No. 04-5655-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of BIA's denial of motion to reopen and reconsider was denied where BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that (1) alien's new evidence regarding conditions in Afghanistan did not materially affect outcome of his claim and (2) uncle's letter was not new and previously unavailable, under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
|
|||||
| Todd v. United States, No. 04-6487-pr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even assuming that inmate did not waive his right to appeal restitution order by pleading guilty, he would not be entitled to habeas relief because district court rejected assertion that he had asked counsel to file a notice of appeal to restitution order, and under sworn testimony before it, district court's finding was not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia, No. 05-3340,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In consideration of the record and the nature of the crime of conviction (forced labor), it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to impose a financial monitoring condition on defendant, even if that condition persisted following her completion of her restitution obligation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Watson, No. 05-3849-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On remand for resentencing under Crosby, the district court's decision not to resentence defendant was affirmed because the district court had considered the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3353(a) and the sentence imposed was reasonable in light of those facts.
|
|||||
| iXL Enters. v. GE Capital Corp., No. 05-2104-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a stockholder's derivative action under 15 U.S.C.S. § 78p(b) against corporations, a corporate debtor was properly substituted for the stockholder, pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 541, when the debtor filed for bankruptcy protection after the stockholder's commencement of the derivative action, and 15 U.S.C.S. § 78p(b) did not preclude substitution.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
