 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ball v. Barnhart, No. 06-1069,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Social Security Commissioner's denial of DIB and SSI was correctly affirmed because the ALJ properly discounted a treating physician's assessment, which indicated that the applicant could not perform even sedentary work, but was inconsistent with the medical record and physician's treatment notes and not supported by the applicant's testimony.
|
|||||
| Ntangsi v. Gonzales, No. 05-4220,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals committed error where, having first granted asylum to petitioner alien, the judge reopened the case and made new findings doubting the alien's credibility; the burden of proving fraud in the petition was to be borne by the government, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 and 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158.
|
|||||
| United States v. Flores-Sandoval, No. 06-2257,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to suppress statements and fingerprints taken after illegal reentry indictment was dismissed and defendant's fingerprints were suppressed was not clear error because his encounter with an immigration agent on the sidewalk after his release from jail was consensual and noncustodial and did not implicate Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
|
|||||
| United States v. Myers, No. 05-3080,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Bray v. Douglas County, No. 06-2638,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probationary corrections officer's claims for federal race and religious discrimination failed on summary judgment; there was no genuine issue of fact on whether the officer's employer honestly believed the officer participated in prayer circles with inmates and that her participation was inconsistent with her professional duties.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cannon, No. 05-3019,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was affirmed where circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that defendant joined a conspiracy to commit murder for hire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958, and had actively participated in and had knowledge of the offense; dismissal of a juror for emotional illness was not error.
|
|||||
| United States v. George, No. 05-4116,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Sinclair, No. 06-3176,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's arrest for illegal reentry was not illegal and not in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(c)(3)(A) because a special agent testified that he showed defendant the warrant before he arrested defendant, which was consistent with the agent's routine practice, and the magistrate judge expressly found the agent more credible than defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Uscanga-Ramirez, No. 06-3192,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment was reasonableness. Even if defendant's wife had not consented to the police officers' warrantless entry into their home, exigent circumstances justified their entry. The officers were justified in entering the house and bedroom to make sure that he would not seriously injure or kill himself.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
