 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cremona v. R.S. Bacon Veneer Co., No. 05-2369,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A manufacturer was entitled to indemnification from the purchaser of its allegedly defectively-designed veneer drying machine based on the unambiguous allocation of risk in the parties' contract; once the machine was installed, the duty to indemnify shifted to the purchaser as to any negligence claim. Summary judgment was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Hoxha v. Gonzales, No. 04-2664,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for judicial review was denied because substantial evidence supported the denial of the alien's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture because the immigration judge made adverse credibility findings against the alien based on specific, cogent reasons.
|
|||||
| Senda v. Comm'r, No. 05-1118,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A decision of the U.S. Tax Court was upheld affirming the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's determination that taxpayers' transfers of valuable MCI WorldCom stock to family limited partnerships constituted gifts of the underlying securities that were taxable under 26 U.S.C.S. § 2511, which were not discountable as limited or minority interests.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gonzalez, No. 04-3795,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to resentencing where the district court imposed a sentence at the low end of the sentencing range, treating the USSG's provisions as mandatory and imposing enhancements based on judge-found facts; USSG § 3B1.1(b) role enhancement was itself not erroneous.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hawk Wing, No. 05-2263,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: PSR indicating defendant had extensive criminal history for which no criminal history points were assigned provided notice of intent to depart required under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32. Consideration of rehabilitative goals did not violate 18 U.S.C.S. § 3852, as they were only considered after determining defendant would receive sentence of imprisonment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mickelson, No. 05-2324,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A defendant's sentence was affirmed where the prison term at the top end of the advisory sentencing range was held to be reasonable in light of the factors under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), and special conditions imposed for counseling, alcohol testing, and no contact with minor children, including defendant's grandchildren did not abuse discretion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sistrunk, No. 04-3506,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to bank fraud under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1344, his appeal from his sentence was dismissed because he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal from the sentencing order; the waiver did not apply to the restitution order, but the district court did not err in imposing restitution in the amount of $ 29,940.
|
|||||
| United States v. Skinner, No. 05-2089,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was denied appellate relief where his conviction for his role in crack cocaine sales conspiracy was based on the testimony of four other coconspirators, which constituted sufficient evidence; due process and 18 U.S.C.S. § 3161 were not violated by the government's delay in indicting defendant while state charges were pending against him.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
