 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| United States v. Boyd, No. 06-2431,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal court was reasonably confident that state courts would hold that firing multiple shots from a high-powered gun in the downtown of a major city for no better reason than an excess of animal spirits created a substantial risk of bodily injury within the meaning of Ind. Code §§ 35-41-2-2, 35-42-2-2; defendant's conviction was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Whiting, No. 06-1924,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Douglas v. Kingston, No. 06-2066,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Concluding that the testimony of the vast majority of jurors was more credible than the testimony of two jurors that claimed that they received information that defendant was in custody on other charges during his trial, the state judge did not act unreasonably within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(e) in denying defendant's habeas petition.
|
|||||
| In re Long, No. 05-4429,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Long v. Vogel, No. 05-4086,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the district court's thorough analysis of plaintiff's conduct in the present case and his history of flouting judicial admonitions and monetary sanctions, the district court did not abuse its discretion by explicitly rejecting lesser sanctions in favor of dismissing plaintiff's case with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).
|
|||||
| United States v. Ortiz, No. 05-4668,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was recorded repeatedly using demonstratives that made no sense absent a weapon to demonstrate; because there was no doubt that the jury would have convicted defendant for violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) even without certain robbery testimony and video, the admission of that evidence was harmless error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Renken, No. 05-2838,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for bank robbery was affirmed because defendant offered nothing to suggest that his wife's age, education, or intelligence precluded her from understanding that she was consenting to the police entry into her home. Nor was there evidence that the officers repeatedly asked for or demanded entry.
|
|||||
| United States v. Scott, No. 06-1913,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's mandatory minimum life sentence imposed under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) following his conviction for conspiring to possess methamphetamine was affirmed because Supreme Court and appellate court precedents foreclosed defendant's claim that sentence was grossly disproportionate to his crime and violated the Eighth Amendment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Trzeciak, No. 06-1688,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant waived his suppression claim. He did not challenge, on appeal, district court's finding that search of his home was legal. Defendant's U.S. Const. amend. VI rights were not violated when district court increased offense level for his 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) offense under U.S. Sentencing Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5), based on its own fact-finding.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
