 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Catskill Litig. Trust v. Park Place Entm't Corp., 04-6685-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the under-developed state of the record concerning the citizenship of one of the LLCs, as well as factors related to both the prejudice determination and the third-party beneficiary analysis, it was necessary to remand the case to the district court for determination of the diversity of the LLCs under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332.
|
|||||
| Dolan v. Roth, No. 04-4497,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of public employee's § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim was affirmed upon application of collateral estoppel, not the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, where the employee could not avoid the application of collateral estoppel by re-characterizing in constitutional terms claims previously litigated in state court.
|
|||||
| Endovasc, Ltd. v. J.P. Turner & Co., LLC, Nos. 04-2407-cv(L), 04-2591-cv(XAP), 04-2807-cv(XAP), 04-2723-cv(XAP),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court's statement that it could not find that complaint was filed for an improper purpose, that it presented a frivolous legal position, or completely lacked evidentiary support, did not satisfy requirements of 15 U.S.C.S. § 78u-4(c). As the statute required district court to make findings, case was remanded to permit it to do so.
|
|||||
| Fu Xiang Jiang v. Gonzales, No. 05-1102-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an alien's testimony was sufficient to make out a claim that he fell into the category of a "refugee," he failed to provide further details when asked and he could not adequately explain inconsistencies in the documents he submitted to support his claims for relief; thus, his petition for review under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252 was denied.
|
|||||
| Gjoni v. Gonzales, No. 04-0988,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court lacked jurisdiction over the challenge to the denial of CAT relief because the alien did not appeal the issue to the BIA; the court vacated the denial of the asylum and withholding of removal claims because the record did not support the IJ's credibility findings and the IJ failed to explain why she rejected the alien's testimony.
|
|||||
| Holowecki v. Fed. Express Corp., Docket No. 04-3376-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of plaintiff and piggyback plaintiffs' ADEA claims as untimely under 29 U.S.C.S. § 626(d) was reversed and remanded because the plaintiff's EEOC intake questionnaire and accompanying affidavit constituted a timely EEOC "charge," the scope of which was sufficient to incorporate the piggyback plaintiffs' age discrimination claims.
|
|||||
| Mansariya v. Holmes, No. 05-3236-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252 to review a claim that changed country conditions warranted reopening of proceedings because such decision fell within the BIA's discretion. BIA and IJ reasonably found that inconsistencies within the alien's testimony and between his testimony and asylum application rendered him incredible.
|
|||||
| Minsariya v. Gonzales, No. 05-3314-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because, not only had petitioner failed to comply with Lozada, she also failed to present her ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the BIA, and she failed to raise before the BIA her motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in India.
|
|||||
| Suarez v. Bennett, No. 04-1143-pr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: If jury would not have convicted the inmate of burglary, then the handling of the jury's inquiry might have satisfied the second prong of the Davis test, i.e., it could amount to an error in state law that was sufficiently harmful as to make the conviction unfair as a matter of federal due process. The court remanded for consideration on the issue.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
