 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc., No. 05-3820-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted in favor of a competitor in an action brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1030, because, although alleged misappropriation of information caused lost profits, there was no interruption of service; therefore, the required amount of loss was not established under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1030(a)(5)(B)(I).
|
|||||
| Samuels v. Selsky, No. 04-0097-pr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment to prison officials on an inmate's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 cause of action was affirmed in part as the due process notice requirements were met regarding the inmate's disciplinary hearing. However, reversal and remand was necessary as to the nondisclosure of documents and confidential source information considered against the inmate.
|
|||||
| Shu Ling Ni v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, Docket Nos. 04-3391-ag(L), 04-3389-ag(CON),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aliens, natives and citizens of the People's Republic of China, were granted a petition for review and their applications for relief from removal were remanded. An IJ failed to consider their CAT claims and determine whether it was likely that, due to China's family planning policies, they would be forcibly sterilized and tortured upon removal.
|
|||||
| Tobon de Montoya v. Gonzales, No. 04-5341-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of the decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief was denied where IJ's determination that internal relocation was reasonable was supported by substantial evidence, under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B), because alien's testimony clearly demonstrated her ability to internally relocate.
|
|||||
| Uli v. INS, Nos. 03-4020 (L), 03-4035 (con), 03-41184 (con),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because IJ's errors went to heart of alien one's claims of past persecution, court could not say that considering events, there was no realistic possibility IJ would have reached different conclusion. Court therefore remanded alien one's case to the BIA. As alien two's asylum claim was derivative of alien one's, alien two's case was remanded also.
|
|||||
| United States v. Andrews, 05-2599-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment that convicted defendant of four of the five charged counts was affirmed where the doctrine of retroactive misjoinder appeared to be inapplicable because, inter alia, there had been no holding that the evidence on any of the charged counts was legally insufficient; the jury simply found the evidence to be unpersuasive on one of the counts.
|
|||||
| United States v. Baker, 05-1739,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it enhanced defendant's sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841 and 846, because defendant refused to reveal source of steroids he claimed he took after he testified that his use of steroids prevented him from forming an intent to participate in a conspiracy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lavi, No. 05-2980-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: U.S. was properly granted summary judgment in an action to collect a taxpayer's unpaid federal income tax liabilities because the action was timely filed before the expiration of the 26 U.S.C.S. § 6502(a) limitations period for the earliest assessment and because the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider the final tax court decision.
|
|||||
| United States v. Memoli, No. 05-2229-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the firearms obtained via his uncoerced consent to search his residence because, under a totality of the circumstances, his consent was not based on deceit or trickery but rather on the police officers' well-founded advice that, absent consent, they could have obtained a warrant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pettus, No. 05-4136-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Regardless of whether or not the advance notice requirement of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) applied to post-Booker sentences, defendant failed to demonstrate that he was harmed by the lack of Rule 32(h) notice where he pointed to no facts or arguments that, with Rule 32(h) notice, he would have presented to influence district court's sentencing decision.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
