 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Klingler v. Director, No. 03-2345,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Missouri's annual fee for use of disabled parking placards was a discriminatory surcharge. It violated 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(f), which prohibited public entities from placing a surcharge on an individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover costs of measures required to provide them with nondiscriminatory treatment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Simpson, No. 05-1416,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) was affirmed where defendant's contention, that before his prior felony drug conviction could have been used to increase his sentence, it had to be proved to the jury that considered the current offense, was at odds with United States Supreme Court sentencing jurisprudence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Worthing, No. 05-1779,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of the existence of single conspiracy to obtain funds from individuals by fraud, known to defendant and co-conspirators, for which defendant was organizer and leader was sufficient to sustain conspiracy, fraud, and money laundering convictions. Cautionary instruction was denied where testimony of cooperating witnesses was corroborated.
|
|||||
| K.D. v. County of Crow Wing, No. 05-2499,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officers, a city, and a county were entitled to summary judgment on the claims filed by the mother and her son under § 1983 because the officers had qualified immunity when they acted reasonably to take the child into protective custody for less than 72 hours while the mother was under suspicion for drug trafficking.
|
|||||
| King v. Busby, No. 04-3736,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of claims under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 that an inmate did not receive prescribed blood-pressure or pain medication was reversed because the frequency of the missed doses, without further explanation, raised an inference that the failure to provide the medication was more than an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care.
|
|||||
| Leach v. Norris, No. 04-2370,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Munn v. Toney, No. 05-1320,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court abused its discretion in disallowing testimony at an evidentiary hearing on a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim that prison officials denied him blood-pressure medication during isolation because he raised the claim before the hearing in his supporting brief, which was filed the same day as his complaint referring only to treatment.
|
|||||
| N. Cheyenne Tribe v. Jackson, No. 04-4145,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Native American Tribes that obtained a preliminary injunction against HUD and others were not entitled to prevailing party status for the recovery of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1998 or 28 U.S.C.S. § 2412 when the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed after HUD made a decision to withdraw funding to the project at issue.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
