 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Gibbons, No. 05-1358,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner was not entitled to damages for alleged violations of his civil rights arising from prosecution because it would necessarily imply invalidity of his conviction or sentence. Although prisoner did achieve resentencing after filing habeas corpus motion, he ended up with same convictions and with lengthy prison and supervised release terms.
|
|||||
| Duarte-Vestar v. Gonzales, No. 05-3765,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied review of BIA decision upholding immigration judge's ruling that resident was subject to removal by reason of his having been convicted of controlled substance offense because the conviction was sufficiently proved; because collateral attack on conviction was impermissible; and because removal was valid under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(43).
|
|||||
| Fohne v. Johanns, No. 05-3060,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing pro se employee's discrimination action against Department of Agriculture. The employee's substantial compliance by serving two of three defendants was not sufficient to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, and the court had already afforded her lenient treatment by granting an extension.
|
|||||
| Halidou v. Gonzales, No. 04-1329,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed BIA ruling affirming immigration judge's finding that asylum application of nonimmigrant visitor who had overstayed visa was properly denied as untimely per 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158 (a)(2)(B); agency denial of asylum was unreviewable under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a)(3) because timeliness was factual issue that was not subject to judicial review.
|
|||||
| Laskowski v. Spellings, No. 05-2749,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a Catholic university had received $ 500,000 to be redistributed to several other religious colleges in order to enable them to replicate a program called Alliance for Catholic Education on their own campuses and the injunctive relief was moot, the case was not moot, and restitution could be awarded in the same amount.
|
|||||
| Mamadou Cire Lo v. Gonzales, No. 05-1562,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an alien never seriously challenged the IJ's finding that the attacks he described were directed not against him personally but rather against his father, and never provided any evidence to suggest that perpetrators of threats against the alien ever attempted to follow through on these threats, alien's petition for review was denied.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hanhardt, Nos. 02-2253, 02-2254, 02-2465 and 02-3625,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On review of a Paladino remand, appellate court was confident that district court judge gave meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors, and concluded that the sentence of defendants was reasonable. District court stressed that defendants were co-conspirators who stole merchandise worth millions of dollars over a period of nearly 20 years.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mitchell, No. 05-3497,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government satisfied the intent element in 18 U.S.C.S. § 472 by introducing evidence that defendant produced more money than plausibly necessary for purported gag gifts, that he brought counterfeit money with him to the bar, and that he did not appear on the night he was arrested to be intoxicated, either to the bar employees or to the officers.
|
|||||
| United States v. Panozzo, No. 05-1051,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to resentencing under Booker. In his plea agreement, he agreed to be sentenced under the USSG as mandatory, and the plain language of his plea agreement made no distinction between constitutional and statutory errors.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
