 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Briggs v. Labarge (In re Phillips), No. 05-1106,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an attorney had violated Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 by filing a bankruptcy petition without meeting with the debtor and ensuring that he had authorization for a second petition, the sanction award was vacated as too heavy-handed where, inter alia, the bankruptcy court appeared to have sanctioned the attorney for conduct by the entire law firm.
|
|||||
| Kashimawo-Spikes v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 04-4063,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ritos v. Gonzales, No. 05-1183,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Team Nursing Servs. v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y, No. 04-3895,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employer terminated a contract with a recruiter of foreign nurses, the employer was entitled to summary judgment as to breach of contract because the contract gave the employer final discretion whether to accept a nurse as an employee, and the employer did not violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by exercising this right.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dawson, No. 04-2435, No. 04-2509,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported conviction of conspiracy to distribute crack and aiding and abetting possession of crack with intent to distribute under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2 and 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) where defendant fled car in which he was passenger when stopped by police, firearms and crack were found in car, and he admitted ownership of one firearm.
|
|||||
| United States v. Enos, No. 05-2020,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Henderson, No. 04-3268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) where the evidence sufficiently established defendant possessed a plastic bag containing a beige rock-like substance, which tested positive for cocaine base and weighed over 50 grams.
|
|||||
| United States v. Larison, No. 05-2023,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's revocation sentence was affirmed where the district court had considered the applicable guidelines as required by 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553 and the sentencing reduction he received at his original sentencing, the amount of resources that the government invested in his treatment and supervision, and his need for treatment were relevant factors.
|
|||||
| United States v. Millot, No. 04-3962,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed where the evidence presented was sufficient to support the findings that the victim's computer consultant incurred over $5000 in loss due to defendant's actions in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and restitution imposed was not subject to Booker analysis.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
