 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Butler v. Johnson, No. 05-7241,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Dockser v. Schwartzberg, No. 05-1273,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint alleging that defendant's request for a three-arbitrator panel violated parties' agreement was affirmed. The question of number of arbitrators was one of arbitration procedure, and parties' agreement did nothing to overcome the presumption that such questions were for arbitral, rather than judicial, resolution.
|
|||||
| Gilmore v. Frazier, No. 05-7431,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Goodman v. Johnson, No. 05-7236,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Higuit v. Gonzales, No. 05-1002,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of petitioner's asylum request was affirmed where the IJ properly determined that the petitioner was ineligible for relief because he had engaged in nonphysical persecution as an intelligence operative for the Marcos regime in the Philippines so that asylum relief was foreclosed under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i).
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. Simpson, No. 05-7309,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Smith v. Kuplinski, No. 05-7349,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Ancrum, No. 05-4010,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Expert testimony on prosecution of drug conspiracy would not have helped jury make necessary credibility determinations and district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding proffered testimony, under Fed. R. Evid. 702, where defendant was able to fully cross-examine cooperating witnesses regarding benefits they received for their testimony.
|
|||||
| United States v. Anderson, No. 04-4972,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with Booker where the United States conceded Booker error, and, in the absence of jury findings on specific drug quantities, the United States could not have demonstrated that any error in calculating defendant's sentence was harmless.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
