 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Citadel Equity Fund v. Aquila, Inc., No. 05-3151-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) a breach of contract claim; a mandatory repayment clause benefitted both defendant and its lenders, so, under New York law, the lenders--including plaintiff--could not waive the contract clause unilaterally.
|
|||||
| Sash v. Zenk, Docket No. 04-6206-pr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following the affirmance of the denial of a prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the prisoner's petition for rehearing was denied where he failed to show any point of law or fact that the court overlooked, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(2), as the rule of lenity did not apply to the court's interpretation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3624(b).
|
|||||
| United Air Lines v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pa., Docket No. 05-2144-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of insurer was affirmed. As insured could not show that lost earnings caused by national disruption of flight service and government's temporary shutdown of airport resulted from physical damage to insured's property or from physical damage to adjacent property, under unambiguous policy language, losses were not covered.
|
|||||
| Valbrun v. Hogan, Docket No. 05-3540-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to reinstate a petition for review was denied because an alien waived his claim that an IJ violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights by failing to advise him that he had the opportunity to request relief under the Convention Against Torture since it was a procedural error that could have been corrected by the BIA.
|
|||||
| Xia Zhu v. United States DOJ, No. 04-5278-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the IJ's denial of asylum and withholding of removal because the alien voluntarily stopped the practice of Falun Gong and, thus, did not show an objectively reasonable basis for her fear of the Chinese government's crackdown on practitioners.
|
|||||
| Xiu Feng Dong v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. 04-2802-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied where the inconsistencies between the alien's testimony and his wife's testimony bore a legitimate nexus to the alien's claim that his wife was forced to undergo an IUD insertion, and therefore afforded substantial evidence to support IJ's adverse credibility determination, under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
|
|||||
| Zaman v. Gonzales, Case No. 02-4412-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien was entitled to remand of his asylum and withholding of removal claims for consideration of his evidence of death threats because the court could not tell whether the IJ's determination that the alien failed to establish past persecution was based on factual findings or legal conclusions and was supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
