 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bulk Pack, Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co., No. 05-30526 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an insurance policy clearly stated that coverage for criminal acts was only covered in certain geographic areas, coverage was properly denied when an act of embezzlement occurred in a different region; the fact that the employee in question transferred money to the United States for job purposes was not dispositive.
|
|||||
| CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec. LLC v. Harris County Toll Rd. Auth., No. 04-20992,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Utility providers' relocation costs were reimbursable under Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 251.101 & 251.102 because the utility providers were "eligible utility facilities" under the statutes--the relocation costs were incurred as a result of a statutorily authorized county acquisition and the costs were "eligible under the law" for reimbursement.
|
|||||
| Epuza Kakungu Mukadi v. Ashcroft, No. 04-60678 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien conceded her asylum application and supporting documents were fraudulent, and she had not appealed the IJ's determination that the application was frivolous, under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(d)(6), she was legally barred from submitting a second asylum application and thus, the IJ was within his discretion in denying a motion to reopen.
|
|||||
| Segovia-Rodriguez v. Gonzales, No. 04-60756 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lacked jurisdiction to consider petition for review of reinstated deportation order because it was not filed within 30 days allowed by 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(1); although Form I-871 that was used to give alien notice of deportation lacked signature on part three, 30-day period started running when Form was served because part one was signed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
