 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gibson v. Weber, No. 05-1888,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To avoid summary judgment, an inmate alleging that a delay in treatment constituted a constitutional deprivation was required to produce medical evidence to establish that the delay had a detrimental effect. The diabetic inmate, who brought an Eighth Amendment claim, provided no expert testimony. Summary judgment was properly granted to defendants.
|
|||||
| Haregwoin Abrha v. Gonzales, No. 04-2041,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Asylum denial was upheld. Substantial evidence supported the finding that petitioner did not have a reasonable fear of future persecution, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Her fears were based on speculation which did not counter the State Department view that those returning to Ethiopia were not likely to suffer persecution under the new government.
|
|||||
| Reliance Ins. Co. v. Chitwood, No. 05-1446,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court erred in denying an insurer prejudgment interest on the amount it advanced for the defense of its insured, pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.020, but judgment denying subrogation against its insured under Missouri's anti-subrogation rule was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Seitz v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 05-2200,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A claimant sued for recovery of disability benefits from an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan pursuant to 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Summary judgment in favor of the Plan was reversed under de novo review of the district court's application of the abuse of discretion standard, because its interpretations were not consistent with Plan goals.
|
|||||
| Thorn v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 04-3495,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Condon, No. 05-2222,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a reasonable jury could have believed the minor victim's testimony about what happened in the trailer, defendant's sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim regarding his convictions for aggravated sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2241(a), 1153, failed. The district court's refusal to grant a traditional downward departure was unreviewable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jourdain, No. 05-1785,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was affirmed; evidence was sufficient that he actively aided the shooting of the victim, and was more than a mere bystander; sentencing enhancements for causing permanent and life-threatening injury and discharge of a firearm under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1365 and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 1B1.3, 2A2.2 were also warranted.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lara-Valenzuela, No. 05-1480,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Rivera-Moreno, No. 05-1236,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 292-month prison term for the drug conspiracy does not involve a Sixth Amendment violation under Booker because the district court considered only the drug quantities and role adjustment found by the jury. The consecutive 60-month prison term for the firearm offense was the minimum mandated by 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
