 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Correspondent Servs. Corp. v. First Equities Corp., Docket Nos. 04-5561-cv(L), 05-0643-cv(CON), 05-0935-cv(CON),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court adopted the district court's reasoning in concluding that jurisdiction was lacking over plaintiff's declaratory judgment action because the claim failed to satisfy 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332's jurisdictional amount and, thus, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over defendants' state law cross-claims.
|
|||||
| Davidov v. Louisville Ladder Group, L.L.C., No. 05-1667-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported finding there was too great analytical gap between data in record and expert opinion proffered for former to underpin latter. Court was entitled to conclude opinion, rather than being product of reliable application of scientific theory to independently supported facts, was little more than speculation, Fed. R. Evid. 702.
|
|||||
| Ogbebo v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No. 04-5001-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA properly denied an alien's asylum and withholding of removal claims as a matter of law where the alien failed to allege any nexus between rebels' maltreatment of him and one of the grounds protected under INA. BIA determined that the alien's testimony and evidence did not prove eligibility for CAT relief by applying the wrong standard of law.
|
|||||
| Palomo v. Trs. of Columbia Univ. in N.Y., No. 05-4563,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer and two individuals was affirmed because the pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and hostile work environment claims of three employees all failed.
|
|||||
| Shao v. Gonzales, No. 04-3378-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying alien's motion to reopen, under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), where alien offered no new evidence that was material to the adverse credibility finding that underlay IJ's denial of his asylum application. Alien's motion for reconsideration was based on arguments that could have been made in the original appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Khawly, No. 03-1491,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was remanded to district court with instructions to vacate defendant's sentence, and conduct resentencing consistent with Booker where defendant's sentence was based on district court's belief that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory. District court erred in finding that USSG § 2X1.1 could not have been applied with USSG § 2B1.1.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rajotte, No. 05-3988-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed where there was no evidence that the district court failed to appreciate its discretion to depart, and there was no basis upon which to hold that the district court's sentencing decision was procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
