 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Takes (In re Takes), No. 06-1373,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applying the prior debts exception in Iowa Code § 561.21(1), the debtors' homestead exemption in a condominium was properly limited to the proceeds of their prior leasehold interest, an independent homestead created by the payment of a entrance fee under a residency agreement, that were reinvested to purchase the property, their new homestead.
|
|||||
| Minn. Towers, Inc. v. City of Duluth, No. 06-1118,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city council did not have to provide written reasons for its denial of a special use permit within 60 days of the application, as required by Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(c), because § 15.99, subd. 2(c), only applied where council approved a resolution to deny a permit or a zoning request, not where the council rejected an approval resolution.
|
|||||
| Peltz v. Edward Vancil, Inc. (In re Bridge Info. Sys.), No. 05-3108, No. 05-3196,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Payment by debtor to a lessee, as consideration for its termination of future options to renew the lease which the parties had negotiated, was held not to be payment on an antecedent debt, and therefore did not constitute an avoidable transfer under 11 U.S.C.S. § 547(b).
|
|||||
| Risdal v. Mapes, No. 06-1410,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Schaefer v. HHS, No. 06-1464,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. D'Andrea, No. 06-1115,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in granting upward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.21(1) based on uncharged conduct, which did not enter into a determination of guidelines range and was almost identical to the charged conduct, including graphic sex discussions with and exhibitionist performances for young girls.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garnette, No. 06-1053,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of producing and distributing child pornography. While his sentence was outside the presumptively reasonable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines sentencing range, trial court's careful application of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors and stated justification for 21 percent upward variance convinced the court that sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. No Neck, No. 06-1705,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction on aggravated sexual abuse and lesser-included offense of abusive sexual contact was affirmed because, inter alia, district court did not err in applying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A3.4(c)(1) cross-reference. Acquitted conduct could be used for sentencing purposes if proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stands, No. 06-1926,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence within the guidelines range for possessing marijuana with intent to distribute was not an abuse of discretion because the district court expressly considered his criminal history and the circumstances of his offense, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), and nothing in the record rebutted the presumption of reasonableness.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
