 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alston v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Ind., Inc., No. 06-30014,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sitting in diversity, district court properly found that new RV's leaky roof was a redhibitory defect under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2520 (2005) and that rescission, rather than a reduction of the purchase price under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2541 (2005), was proper remedy, but reversed mental anguish award under La. Civ. Code. Ann. art. 1998 (2005).
|
|||||
| Baki v. Bigelow Mgmt., 06-40989 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if district court erred in excluding as unfairly prejudicial testimony of individual with whom employee was having extramarital affair during period in which she alleged she was sexually harassed at work, error was harmless because jury was presented with evidence of everything about which individual would have testified on behalf of employer.
|
|||||
| Betzel v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 05-10903,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court abused its discretion in refusing to allow insured's late designation of witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2); although insured offered no explanation for late designation, the testimony was crucial to insured's case alleging breach of homeowner's contract and any prejudice to insurer could have been cured by a continuance.
|
|||||
| Charpentier v. Ortco Contrs., No. 06-60217,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under 33 U.S.C.S. § 921(c), an employer was required to continue paying LHWCA benefits even though a widow's award of such benefits had been vacated by a federal appellate court, until the date on which the court either issued a stay order or issued its mandate, but not until the Supreme Court denied the widow's petition for writ of certiorari.
|
|||||
| Hummel v. Muniz, No. 05-51540 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When state prisoner's appeal from denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from dismissal of § 1983 suit, which was dismissed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A for failure to state claim, was dismissed as frivolous, dismissal of appeal and dismissal of § 1983 suit both counted as strikes under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(g)'s three-strikes provision.
|
|||||
| United States v. Frazier, No. 05-20722 c/w No. 05-20741 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disparity between 71-month sentence imposed on defendant following his conviction of possessing firearm as convicted felon and 21-month sentence received by a co-defendant for the same conduct was not unreasonable, and the disparity did not violate the Due Process Clause, because defendant's sentence was the result of his extensive criminal record.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lozano-Avila, No. 05-41462 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: For sentencing purposes, evidence that defendant possessed 350 pounds or 158 kilograms of marijuana was sufficient because a reasonable jury could have found that U.S. proved that quantity beyond reasonable doubt where federal agent testified that marijuana weighed more than 100 kilograms and defendant did not object to or rebut that testimony.
|
|||||
| United States v. Madden, No. 06-50428 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine within 1000 feet of a university, a junior high school, and a playground was affirmed because her arguments failed that, inter alia, she did not validly waive her right to a jury trial, and the search of her vehicle was not supported by probable cause.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mejia-Huerta, No. 05-11391 Consolidated with 06-10004 Consolidated with 06-10082 Consolidated with 06-10099 Consolidated with 06-10142 Consolidated with 06-10211,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) did not apply to non-USSG sentences and defendants' sentences were affirmed because the district court could impose the non-USSG "variances," which were not "departures," after calculating the proper ranges, referencing 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)'s factors, and exercising its discretion to sua sponte impose non-USSG sentences.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rojas-Gines, No. 06-40198 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When written judgment of conviction described defendant's offense as attempted reentry of a deported alien, but the record showed that defendant pleaded guilty to being an alien unlawfully found in the United States after deportation, the error was a clerical error that was subject to correction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
