 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ambrose v. Schultz, No. 06-1565,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action against parole board members was properly dismissed because, although his challenge to the revocation of his suspended sentence was not based on a decision regarding parole per se, absolute immunity attached to the relevant decisions of the members that were made within their powers and official capacities.
|
|||||
| Buser v. Raymond, No. 06-1655,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court of appeals found that dismissal of doctor's claim he was denied due process in administrative hearing was proper, where the disciplinary hearing process pursuant to the Nebraska Uniform Licensing Law, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-101 et seq., contained sufficient safeguards, and the chief medical officer was entitled to absolute immunity.
|
|||||
| Morales v. Ault, No. 05-4021,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of an inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition was affirmed because the state court was reasonable in its determination that overwhelming evidence of the inmate's guilt overcame any trial defects affected by the inmate's counsel; the inmate's accounts of the events were inconsistent and frequently implausible.
|
|||||
| Raines v. Potter, No. 06-1919,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Stoehr v. Reisch, No. 05-3849,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Bunch, No. 06-1945,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Mink, No. 06-2227,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court plainly erred in imposing jury costs against defendant under D. Neb. R. 31.2 because only costs authorized by 28 U.S.C.S. § 1920 could be imposed on a criminal defendant, and jury costs were not among those authorized by the statute. Thus, D. Neb. R. 31.2, in allowing the imposition of such costs, was not consistent with federal law.
|
|||||
| United States v. Salas-Pineda, No. 06-1422,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Enhancement of sentence for illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(b) did not violate Fifth and Sixth Amendments because defendant's prior aggravated felony conviction for which he was deported was specifically alleged in the indictment to which he pled guilty and he admitted in a plea agreement that he had the prior conviction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Yale, No. 06-1404,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Refusal to grant a downward variance from a sentence, which was within the guidelines range, to accomplish sentencing parity between co-conspirators in a drug conspiracy was not an abuse of discretion because the government stated without objection that defendant's case was distinguished by the extensive criminal record and existence of a weapon.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
