 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Coku v. INS, No. 04-0866-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because petitioner alien never contended in his brief to the BIA, nor his notice of appeal, that error infected the IJ's adverse-credibility finding, that the IJ was biased or impartial, or that the translation in the immigration court was incompetent, the failure to exhaust was a jurisdictional bar to the appellate court's review of the claims.
|
|||||
| Gibbs v. CIGNA Corp., Docket No. 05-3879-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of a plan in an ERISA action was vacated and remanded because a plan administrator's decision was subject to a de novo standard of review, and there were issues of fact as to whether a beneficiary received a salary, prior to becoming disabled, that should have been included in the calculation of his benefits.
|
|||||
| Hoxha v. Gonzales, 04-2292-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of petitioner alien's withholding of removal claim was vacated and remanded because the IJ's failure to make express findings rendered her decision unamenable to review; the IJ failed to make a finding regarding whether the alien had suffered past persecution, and failed to make an express finding regarding the alien's credibility.
|
|||||
| Jian Ming Weng v. United States DOJ, 04-1544-ag,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported determination that alien's testimony was not credible. Alien's application included no discussion of fine allegedly levied by police, violent confrontation at bookstore, or confiscation of store's merchandise; alien's testimony concerning reason he purchased Falun Gong books was inconsistent with application.
|
|||||
| Newby v. News Mkt., Inc., No. 05-3311-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim where the proposed agreement directed plaintiff to sign and return it to defendants, and this condition was unsatisfied. There was no abuse of discretion in a decision to deny plaintiff's motion to amend the pretrial order to add a new witness.
|
|||||
| Tai Bin Ouyang v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, No. 04-1810-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of alien's applications for asylum and withholding of removal were affirmed because ordinary criminal charges (illegal departure and harboring a criminal) based on the alien's admitted conduct would not necessarily indicate that the Chinese government imputed to the alien the disfavored political beliefs of his friend.
|
|||||
| United States v. Borden, 05-0315-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial, which was based on the admission in evidence of the plea allocution of a co-defendant, was affirmed where the Crawford error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because, inter alia, the evidence against defendant was overwhelming, and the allocution did not name defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Byrd, 05-1558-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Echeverri, No. 05-1841-cr,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err, under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 application n. 12, when it sentenced defendant based on agreed-upon quantity of heroin (one kilogram), rather than the amount that was delivered, where, inter alia, defendant understood that he would not be paid in full until coconspirators sold a kilogram of heroin.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
