 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 05-30225,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer was entitled to summary judgment as to an assignee's claim under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 22:658 and 22:1220 because the assignee failed to show that the insurer acted in bad faith by failing to settle for the policy limits, or to inform the insured of the potential for excess liability or of any settlement offers.
|
|||||
| Deaton v. Comm'r, No. 05-60278 consolidated with No. 05-60292,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayers' remittance of $ 125,000 in conjunction with their Form 4868 application for an extension of time to file constituted an "amount paid as estimated income tax" under I.R.C. § 6513(b)(2), not a deposit. Because the $ 125,000 was thus paid outside the look-back period of I.R.C. § 6511(b)(2)(A), they could not recover their overpayment.
|
|||||
| Dolan v. Dretke, No. 03-41186 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A pro se state inmate's application for a COA was granted because the district court erred in finding that his conviction was final before December 21, 2001, and the inmate addressed valid arguments for equitable tolling that were not addressed by the district court.
|
|||||
| Surgi v. Barnhart, No. 05-30140,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ's decision denying claimant's application for disability insurance benefits was supported by substantial evidence; medical tests did not indicate that claimant had any back or neck problems, treating physicians stated that claimant could return to work without limitation, and her subjective complaints were not supported by objective evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Duenas-Aleman, No. 04-41554 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because district court sentenced defendant under mandatory guidelines regime, it committed Fanfan error. Government conceded defendant's objection on basis of Blakely was sufficient to preserve Fanfan claim. Government did not meet burden of showing beyond reasonable doubt that district court would have imposed same sentence absent error.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia-Leal, No. 05-40010 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because district court sentenced defendant under mandatory guidelines regime, it committed Fanfan error. Record contained no indication that court would have imposed same sentence absent error; government could not meet burden of showing beyond reasonable doubt that court would not have sentenced defendant differently under advisory guidelines.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, No. 04-41497 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where sentencing transcript was silent with regard to whether court would have applied same sentence had guidelines been advisory only, and 77-month term of imprisonment was at bottom of applicable guideline range, government did not meet its burden of proving Fanfan error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| Webb v. Dretke, No. 04-10334 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's dismissal of a pro se state inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition as untimely was affirmed because the petition was filed late, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the inmate was not entitled to equitably toll the limitations period.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
