 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Freeman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 05-1622,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's son died in an accident while riding in a car driven by his mother. Because the household exclusion clause was clear, the district court properly applied the policy as written. It made findings of fact that the mother and son resided in the same household. Those findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).
|
|||||
| Lebeaux v. United States, No. 05-2037,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant could not show that counsel's conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, appellate court rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. Where Fort Laramie Treaty did not deprive federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over federal drug trafficking cases, United States had jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Reyes-Morales v. Gonzales, No. 05-1008,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an analysis under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, an immigration judge erred by determining that the crime of making harassing telephone calls was a crime of moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(a)(2)(A) because no mental state requirement was used in making the decision.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Barnhart, No. 05-1954,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of supplemental security income benefits was reversed and remanded for further findings as the conclusions of the administrative law judge (ALJ) were not supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ was to further develop the record to ascertain what level of work, if any, the claimant was able to perform.
|
|||||
| Swope v. Barnhart, No. 05-1315,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ, in posing a hypothetical to a vocational expert as to whether an applicant could perform any other jobs in the national economy, did not include any reference to the applicant's intellectual capacity. Because the court harbored serious doubts that the applicant could perform the positions suggested, the court remanded.
|
|||||
| United States v. Becerra, No. 04-3915,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed a second superceding indictment with prejudice where the Government took advantage of a continuance and speedy trial violation to obtain the second indictment for greater offenses; however, a first indictment should not have been dismissed with prejudice under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3162 based on a brief delay.
|
|||||
| United States v. Grant, No. 05-2436,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction was affirmed where witnesses testified that they observed defendant buying and selling crack cocaine, often in quantities indicative of an intent to redistribute, and, if believed, this testimony was sufficient to show that defendant was a knowing participant in an agreement to distribute cocaine base, under 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841 and 846.
|
|||||
| United States v. Liner, No. 04-2497,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of offenses related to a fraudulent investment scheme, deposition of a foreign witness was properly denied, an expert did not testify to the ultimate issue of fraud, the evidence overwhelmingly supported a finding of fraudulent intent, and restitution was properly awarded to victims not named in the indictment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Morris, No. 04-3775,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although forcing an outer screen door open only two seconds after officers announced their presence at defendant's residence was unreasonable, suppression of drug evidence was not warranted since the evidence was obtained after a lawful second search in which the officers again announced and forced an inner wood door ten seconds later.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
