 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Jackson, No. 06-2728,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a woman died due to excessive heat while a patient at a nursing home, the insurer for the home's manager had no duty to indemnify because the policy's professional services exclusion applied. The decision to not turn on the air conditioning rested on the administrator's training and experience as a nurse and nursing home administrator.
|
|||||
| Davies v. Johanns, No. 06-1403,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although farmers' land was appraised at the beginning of a shared appreciation agreement under 7 C.F.R. § 1951.914(c)(1) and appraised under 7 C.F.R. § 1809 at the end of the agreement term, the appraisals were not inconsistent when both appraisals determined that the best use of the land was agricultural and compared the land to other farms.
|
|||||
| Hunter v. Springer, No. 06-1355,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Maddix v. Crawford, No. 05-4119,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Pavlovich v. Gonzales, No. 06-1171, No. 06-1172,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aliens who applied for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158, and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231, were denied relief; although they had a subjectively genuine fear of persecution, their fear was not objectively reasonable, given that family members continued to reside in Latvia and Russia without being subjected to specific harm.
|
|||||
| United States v. Allmon, No. 06-3005,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was proper because his guilty plea agreement was unconditional and he did not present his claim that the plea was involuntary or coerced to the district court and, thus, he could not challenge the denial of his severance motions or the plea on direct appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Colbert, No. 05-4421,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Falcon, No. 06-1438,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Any error in embezzlement instruction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1163 was not plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights because evidence that she submitted fabricated hotel receipts and falsely claimed to have paid conference fees in effort to hide fellow travelers' misuse of funds was sufficient to show willful misapplication of tribal funds.
|
|||||
| United States v. Turner, No. 06-1209,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied defendant's 18 U.S.C.S. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual app. C, amend. 591 (2000), because amend. 591 was already in effect when he was sentenced and his sentence could not be based on a range that was "subsequently" lowered by the sentencing commission.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
