 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Garcia v. Mathes, No. 06-1703,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was properly denied habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 because state court's exclusion of expert's irrelevant opinion that medical malpractice was a proximate cause but not the sole proximate cause of the victim's death was not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and did violate due process.
|
|||||
| IBEW, Local Union No. 124 v. Smart Cabling Solutions, Inc., No. 06-1881,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A union was properly granted summary judgment in an LMRA action to enforce an arbitrator's decision because an interest arbitration clause was binding and enforceable against an employer who withdrew from the CBA given that the arbitrator's renewed agreement was the first and only agreement imposed by the arbitrator pursuant to the clause.
|
|||||
| Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Kamrath, No. 06-1794,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not err in awarding proceeds of decedent's life insurance policy to his former wife, the named beneficiary of record; although decedent made statements that he intended to change beneficiaries, it was not clear error to find that the substantial compliance doctrine should not apply to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 findings of fact.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jara, No. 06-1823,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841 and 851 was affirmed because defendant confessed to police officers that he knew that some marijuana was present in the empty truck. Trial court did not err when it did not give a "mere presence" instruction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tuttle, No. 06-1089,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, 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. |
