 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Century 21, Inc. v. Diamond State Ins. Co., Docket No. 04-3362-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the underlying complaint alleging trademark infringement against an insured stated a claim that brought it within the embrace of the insurance coverage provided by the insurer, the order of the district court granting summary judgment to the insurer was vacated and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
|
|||||
| Contship Containerlines, Ltd. v. PPG Indus., Docket No. 05-0267-cv,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Carrier was not entitled to impose strict liability on shipper under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C.S. App. § 1304(6), because the carrier knew that the shipper's cargo posed a danger, but nevertheless exposed the cargo to the general condition that triggered the known danger.
|
|||||
| Li Xian He v. Gonzales, No. 03-41118-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported denial of asylum and withholding of removal based upon an adverse credibility determination because there were inconsistencies between alien's sworn statement in her application and her testimony. For example, sworn statement did not mention attempted rape, but alien testified police officers twice tried to rape her.
|
|||||
| Li v. United States DOJ, Nos. 03-41115-ag (L); 03-41117-ag (Con) NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of decision denying asylum was denied where IJ's determination that, inter alia, discrepancies between petitioners' testimony regarding their interactions with their child and the number of IUDs an alien was forced to wear, caused them not to be credible was substantially supported by record, under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
|
|||||
| Rizal v. Gonzales, Docket No. 03-40750,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ's determination that alien failed to sustain his burden of proof to qualify for asylum or withholding of deportation was not supported by substantial evidence. The IJ appeared to have erroneously viewed the alien's lack of detailed doctrinal knowledge about Christianity as automatically rendering incredible his claim of religious persecution.
|
|||||
| United States v. Skelly, Docket Nos. 05-4261-cr(L), 05-4290-cr(CON), 05-4933-cr(XAP), 05-4936-cr(XAP), 05-5275-cr(CON),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court allegedly issued a jury charge which omitted certain elements required to establish a fiduciary relationship, but no better instruction was requested by either defendant and no prejudice occurred; defendants' convictions for securities fraud and conspiracy were affirmed because there was no plain error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
|
|||||
| Xing Kang Chen v. United States DOJ, No. 04-1170-ag NAC,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of decision denying asylum and withholding of removal was denied, under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252, where BIA and IJ found alien's testimony incredible because, among other things, alien was unable to explain certain inconsistencies in his testimony, and these were specific, cogent reasons that bore a legitimate nexus to finding.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
