 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Plubell v. Merck & Co., No. 05-4217,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Drug manufacturer attempted to remove a case under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), arguing that replacing the class representative commenced a new action. However, under the Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3) test, as applied to Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 55.33(c), the amended pleading related back to the original petition filed before CAFA enactment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gooseberry, No. 04-3596,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Gurley, No. 04-2627,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's argument--that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the government never filed a complaint, but only filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy court--was rejected because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate his objection to the proof of claim in his bankruptcy proceeding under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1334(b).
|
|||||
| United States v. Lugo-Sanchez, No. 05-1420,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim that his guilty plea was involuntary was not properly before the appellate court because defendant did not present it to the district court and his counsel specifically confirmed that defendant was prepared to proceed with sentencing after being informed of his ineligibility for safety-valve relief.
|
|||||
| United States v. Puckett, No. 05-1476,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision revoking defendant's supervised release and imposing a new sentence was affirmed where sentence was within authorized limits, under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), (h), and district court considered appropriate factors and imposed a sentence that was not unreasonable, and, in fact, was below the advisory range under revocation guideline.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reyes, No. 05-1337,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Torres, No. 04-4031,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
