 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bynum v. Am. Airlines, No. 04-20921,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an airline customer's ADA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 et seq., and Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C.S. § 41705, claims were supported by existing law - or at the very least not directly contrary to existing law so as to be frivolous - the district court's award of sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 was vacated and remanded.
|
|||||
| G.H. Leidenheimer Baking Co., v. Sharp (In re SGSM Acquisition Co., LLC), No. 05-30445, No. 05-30455,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Payments to suppliers during preference period did not qualify for ordinary course of business defense, 11 U.S.C.S. § 547(c)(2); testimony evinced lack of expert knowledge necessary to establish direct store delivery or baked goods industry credit terms favorable to supplier. However, subsequent new value, § 547(c)(4), was applied to each payment.
|
|||||
| Iwegbu v. United States, No. 05-10276 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner's appeal from the dismissal of his Bivens complaint was properly dismissed and the bar of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(g) was imposed because his claim for deliberate indifference based on the prison officials' delay of his medical treatment was frivolous when his back surgery was performed as scheduled.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, No. 04-31059 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(a)(3), was denied where he failed to show that he would have raised any nonfrivolous issues. It was not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for relief from judgment where claim against American Arbitration Association was barred by arbitral immunity.
|
|||||
| United States v. Anaya-Martinez, No. 05-40003 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Barahona-Mejia, No. 04-51361 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given a district court's sympathetic comments to defendant and imposition of a sentence at the bottom of the mandatory guideline range, defendant was entitled to have his case remanded for the limited purpose of determining whether the district court wished to resentence him under the advisory guidelines.
|
|||||
| United States v. Contreras-Lopez, No. 05-20224 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Elizondo-Gutierrez, No. 04-41413 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to resentencing for illegal reentry because the government did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court's error in sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory application of the guidelines was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gonzalez, No. 04-20120,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of drug conspiracy based upon, inter alia, an informant's testimony, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny his request for a jury instruction that a government agent could not be co-conspirator, because the evidence supported the conclusion that defendant acted with a "true" co-conspirator, his supplier.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
