 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chang v. Horizons, No. 05-6760-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former employer was properly granted summary judgment in a former employee's retaliation case under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-3, because the employee did not suffer a materially adverse action based on oral and written warnings, which were consistent with the employer's progressive discipline policy, or from questioning by her supervisor.
|
|||||
| Chi Qiou Sun v. Keisler, 07-0459-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B) supported the denial of asylum and withholding of removal for a Chinese alien because there was no evidence that he was ever arrested, threatened, or mistreated due to his father's practice of Falun Gong, and any fear of future persecution on this basis was merely speculative.
|
|||||
| Li Qun Shi v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 02-4646-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B) supported the denial of asylum for a Chinese alien since he was not per se eligible based on his wife's forced sterilization, and he did not show a well-founded fear of persecution in his home province due to the fact that he fathered two children, in violation of the family planning policy.
|
|||||
| Neng Bin Zhang v. Keisler, 06-2702-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's appeal of the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen where the motion was filed nearly nine years after he had been found deportable and had failed to comply with a voluntary departure order, and where he did not show that the motion met the requirements for an exception to the filing deadline.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Geltzer, Docket Nos. 06-4450-bk, 06-5323-bk (consolidated for disposition),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order dismissing Chapter 7 debtor's motion to dismiss her case was vacated and case was remanded to bankruptcy court to reconsider its dismissal decision in light of fact that debtor would be able to pay all debts (thus securing fresh start) if certain conditions were met. Cause per 11 U.S.C.S. § 707(a) could be a debtor's ability to repay debts.
|
|||||
| United States v. Melia, No. 06-2054-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The sentence imposed on defendant, who pleaded guilty to participation in a racketeering operation, was properly enhanced under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) for his supervisory role because the record established that another person within the racketeering operation extended usurious loans only with defendant's prior permission.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rommy, Docket No. 06-0520-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, November 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was affirmed. District court properly instructed that venue must be proved by a preponderance of evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt; and correctly charged that call placed by government actor in Manhattan to defendant in Amsterdam could establish venue, provided defendant used call to further charged conspiracy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
