 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Sanderson v. Boddie-Noell Enters., No. 05-1753,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An owner was properly granted summary judgment on a patron's negligence claim because the uncontradicted testimony of the owner's employees established that it did not breach its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition but scraped and salted the sidewalk and placed warning signs there before the patron, an invitee, fell.
|
|||||
| Sutton v. Cree, Inc., No. 05-1840,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States ex rel. Hurst v. Northrop Grumman Corp., No. 05-2166,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Brock, No. 04-4712,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's firearm possession conviction, 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922, based upon the defendant's constructive possession of a 12-gauge shotgun found in a bedroom where 6.7 ounces of cocaine had been found in a closet along with a safe which contained intimate photos of the defendant and his wife.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cook, No. 04-4607,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Use of prior robbery offenses to invoke the armed career criminal enhancement, 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e), was affirmed as permissible without indictment presentment or jury submission because the facts necessary to support the enhancement were inherent in the defendant's conviction such that no constitutional error existed under Booker.
|
|||||
| United States v. Doye, No. 05-6959,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Dozier, No. 05-4313,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from his conviction and sentence was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), where district court granted no extension of time to appeal, nor did defendant request an extension or make a showing of excusable neglect to explain why he did not file his notice of appeal until a year after entry of judgment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Myers, No. 05-4308,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Defendant was properly advised as to rights, offense charged, and maximum sentence. District court also determined there was independent factual basis for plea, and that plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nichols, No. 04-5020, No. 04-5021,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court erroneously excluded from consideration at sentencing the defendant's statement that he carried a firearm during a robbery, even though the statement had been suppressed before trial because it was obtained from the defendant in violation of his Fifth Amendment Miranda rights.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
