 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Al-Mousa v. Gonzales, No. 05-20174,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review was denied because the alien had not exhausted his administrative remedies; the alien could have raised his CAT claim on direct review with the BIA or the present court, but did not raise the issue until he sought a writ of habeas corpus.
|
|||||
| Fin. Acquisition Ptnrs. v. Blackwell, No. 04-11300,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Shareholders' claims under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were properly dismissed because (1) the denial of a motion to dismiss in another litigation did not provide collateral estoppel, (2) not considering an expert's opinions was proper, and (3) they failed to prove falsity and scienter under the PSLRA.
|
|||||
| Gonzalez-Garcia v. Gonzales, No. 04-60385,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien was not removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i) and was entitled to apply for INA § 212(c) discretionary relief because his misdemeanor assault conviction under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(3) was not a crime of violence, as defined by 18 U.S.C.S. § 16, in that the "offensive or provocative contact" element did not require physical force.
|
|||||
| Pierce v. Barnhart, No. 05-50003 Consolidated with No. 05-50242,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court lacked jurisdiction to hear requests for attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2412(d) because the applications were untimely; the date of a voluntary dismissal of an appeal by the Commissioner of Social Security commenced the thirty-day period under § 2412(d)(1)(B).
|
|||||
| Smith v. Johnson, 06-70007,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of inmate's challenge to method of injection was affirmed. Inmate had been on death row for more than nine years but decided to wait until five days before his scheduled execution to challenge procedure for lethal injection that had been used by state during entire stay on death row; he was not entitled to relief due to dilatory filing.
|
|||||
| Stolt Achievement, Ltd. v. Dredge B.E. Lindholm, No. 04-20773,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed district court judgment that tanker and boat were equally at fault in causing collision; negligence of boat's captain in running too close to side of channel, in speeding, and in not quickly radioing about his steering difficulties was not superseding cause where acts took place almost simultaneously with tanker's own negligent acts.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mendoza-Blanco, No. 04-41499,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court sentenced defendant under mandatory guidelines regime and committed Fanfan error. Appellate court was not persuaded that no prejudice resulted to defendant, particularly in light of judge's decision to impose minimum sentence under guidelines, Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); sentence was vacated and matter was remanded for resentencing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Robins, No. 04-30559,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed where he had not met his burden of showing that any Booker error affected his substantial rights because district court exercised its discretion to depart upwardly, and defendant could not have pointed to any evidence that district court would have imposed a lower sentence but for the mandatory guidelines scheme.
|
|||||
| United States v. Salinas, No. 05-40134 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute 368 kilograms of marijuana was affirmed because the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
