 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ahmed v. INS, No. 03-4112 NAC to RAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported denial of asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a) based on adverse credibility finding where alien gave two differing accounts of alleged assault against him arising from involvement with political party, and two party members' affidavits, containing nearly identical boilerplate language, did not mention alien's detention.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Herbert, 03-2979,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's denial of a state inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition was affirmed because the inmate was not denied due process by the trial court's admission of identification testimony, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
|
|||||
| ICC Indus. v. Isr. Disc. Bank, Ltd., 05-4258-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that it was not the proper forum to hear an action which a U.S. corporation filed against an Israeli bank and granted the bank's motion to dismiss the action on grounds of forum non convenience.
|
|||||
| Joseph v. Worldwide Flight Servs., 05-4077-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Li Ping Dong v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 04-2415,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ling Yong Li v. Gonzales, 03-41107,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inconsistencies in petitioner's testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting IJ's adverse credibility finding; petitioner explained the inconsistencies merely by stating that the dates on asylum application were "mistakes," but those dates were important and went to the heart of petitioner's claim of persecution for practicing Falun Gong.
|
|||||
| Man Chun R Yam v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 04-4748,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court had jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen on the basis that it was untimely; because it was clear that petitioner did not file his motion within two years of the order affirming the order of removal, the BIA did not err in denying the motion.
|
|||||
| Mulligan v. Loschiavo, 04-5676,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals held that plaintiff who filed a civil action did not have an unqualified right to appear pro se, and it found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied plaintiff's request to appear pro se, given evidence that it was in plaintiff's best interest to be represented by counsel.
|
|||||
| United States v. Berrios, 05-0957-CR,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in admitting under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence of defendant's drug dealing relationship with a government witness because such evidence was admissible for the proper purpose of establishing circumstances surrounding events or furnishing explanation of the understanding or intent with which certain acts were performed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
