 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| CareFirst of Md., Inc. v. First Care, P.C., No. 04-2493,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of HMO's (CareFirst) trademark infringement, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1114, claim against a physician group (First Care) was affirmed because plaintiff could not make a sufficient showing of actual confusion, and evidence of extensive third-party use also demonstrated that CareFirst's mark lacked commercial strength.
|
|||||
| Conner v. United States, No. 05-1051,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayer's 26 U.S.C.S. § 7609(d)(1) petition to quash summonses issued to two third-party record keepers was properly denied where the taxpayer failed to demonstrate that the IRS already possessed the disputed records, and there was no showing that the IRS's violation of its policy by its untimely acceptance of the documents was done in bad faith.
|
|||||
| Getachew v. Gonzales, No. 05-1400,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien was not entitled to review of the BIA's denial of asylum and withholding of removal because he failed to show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could have failed to find the requisite fear of prosecution.
|
|||||
| Gibson v. LTD, Inc., No. 04-2110, No. 04-2131,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that a consumer and a motor vehicle dealer consummated a series of agreements the dealer prepared so the consumer could finance the purchase of two trucks when the consumer signed the agreements, not when dealer found a third party to finance purchases, and it affirmed district court's judgment that dealer violated the TILA.
|
|||||
| Onana v. Gonzales, No. 04-2087,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Henderson, No. 04-4057,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed. The appellate court reviewed the materials submitted by the parties and concluded that the district court adequately informed defendant of the dangers of self-representation and sufficiently ensured that his waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hill, No. 04-4861,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to establish conspiracy to sell crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C.S. § 846 where it showed that defendant regularly distributed crack cocaine over a period of years, that he was the regular source of supply for several drug dealers, and that he regularly paid for services with crack cocaine.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mondell, No. 05-4326,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Parker, No. 04-4195,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was affirmed, but his sentence was vacated and case was remanded for resentencing. Any error in admitting prior act evidence did not substantially sway jury's verdict. As defendant was sentenced to term of imprisonment that exceeded maximum authorized by jury verdict alone, defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
