 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cage v. Wyo-Ben, Inc. (In re Ramba Inc.), No. 04-20752,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where two months before bankruptcy a buyer received a debtor's assets free of liens, paid off the debtor's under secured lender, and paid the rest of the consideration to some unsecured creditors, those sales proceeds, being fully encumbered, were not property of the bankruptcy estate and the trustee's 11 U.S.C.S. § 547(b) preference action failed.
|
|||||
| Gibbons-Markey v. Tex. Med. Liab. Trust (In re Gibbons-Markey), No. 04-51345,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court judgment that an insurer was not obligated to defend an insured was reversed, and the case was remanded for a determination of the insurer's attorneys fees from a successful defense as the insurer was not prejudiced by the insured's post-default notice where the insured was also unaware of a suit until after the default was entered.
|
|||||
| Meyer v. Barnhart, No. 05-40971 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal by a social security disability claimant was denied because 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) did not apply as the administrative law judge did not reject the opinion of the claimant's treating physician. Accordingly, an improper legal standard was not applied in the analysis of the claimant's case, as the claimant contended.
|
|||||
| Murray v. Crossmark Sales, Inc., No. 04-51253,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)'s provision that waiver resulted from a failure to plead was not absolute because where the matter was raised in the trial court in a manner that did not result in unfair surprise, technical failure to comply precisely with Rule 8(c) was not fatal. In an ERISA matter, the work-related exclusion defense was not waived.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hardin, No. 05-50312,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court erred by failing to appoint an expert under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3006A to determine whether or not a by-product of methamphetamine manufacturing, known as "bones," was properly included in the amount of drugs attributable to defendant under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1; the issue was material to the applicable sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lachney, m 04-30490 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed on third prong of plain error test, as he could not show error affecting substantial rights where sentencing court imposed sentence under guidelines it considered binding. There was no indication in record from judge's remarks or otherwise that gave court of appeals clue as to whether judge would have reached different conclusion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ramos, No. 03-40567 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to show that district court committed plain error under Booker when it sentenced him to 84 months' incarceration on drug-related conviction because fact that he was sentenced at bottom of applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range did not establish ipso facto that he would have received lesser sentence under advisory Guidelines.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vasquez-Ramos, No. 03-51337 Conference Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not demonstrate, with probability sufficient to undermine confidence in outcome, that Booker error affected substantial rights. Since defendant could not meet plain error standard, he could not meet standard for showing extraordinary circumstances for review of Booker claim presented for first time in petition for writ of certiorari.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
