 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Trumball Invs. Ltd. I v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., No. 05-1536,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A bank was not required to follow the oral investment instructions of an individual in a discretionary investment account because the language "shall in its discretion" allowed the bank to use its expert judgment in deciding whether or not to follow the instructions.
|
|||||
| United States v. Boomer, No. 04-4907,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions under 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841 and § 924(c) were affirmed because the district court properly applied the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, defendant failed to show that the prosecution did not make a potentially exculpatory videotape of the search available to defendant, and the evidence was sufficient.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carson, No. 04-4270,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2, 2113 and use and carry of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2, 924(c) was affirmed because the denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was a proper exercise of discretion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fluker, No. 05-7528,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Layne, No. 05-7785,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Maxwell, No. 05-7860,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Ricks, No. 04-4055,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to resentencing for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor because the enhancement based on his role as his stepdaughter's caregiver, a fact not found by the jury or admitted, was not harmless error because it resulted in a sentence that exceeded the maximum he would have received based on admitted or jury-found facts.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stanley, No. 05-7602,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Stapleton, No. 05-7726,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
