 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Primus Corp. v. Centreformat Ltd., No. 06-1564,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A resident's action for the nonresident's breach of a distribution agreement was properly dismissed for failure to show minimum contacts supporting personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause because the nonresident had no agents, property, or license to do business in the state and the contract was not finalized or negotiated there.
|
|||||
| Tamenut v. Gonzales, No. 05-4418,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise discretion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) to sua sponte grant alien's untimely motion to reopen based on his marriage to a citizen because the motion did not raise an exceptional issue when he was already married at the time asylum was denied and his prior motion to reopen was based on marriage.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gomez-Coronado, No. 06-2656,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not clearly err in applying a role enhancement to defendant's base offense level, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(b), for being a manager or supervisor of a drug conspiracy because defendant's plea agreement and undisputed PSR indicated that he redistributed methamphetamine to six dealers.
|
|||||
| Jones v. MSPB, No. 05-3919,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Poole v. Stubblefield, No. 06-2240,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Matrix Group Limited, Inc. v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., Nos. 05-4345/06-1033,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer for wrongful termination of an agreement was affirmed because the company did not provide a notice and opportunity to cure as required under the agreement. Damages for terminal value should not have been eliminated, as they were separate from damages for the breach.
|
|||||
| Rittenhouse v. UnitedHealth Group Long Term Disability Ins. Plan, No. 06-1905,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court committed error in finding an employee was entitled to disability benefits where the plan administrator had discretionary authority and was not subject to de novo review, and the district court abused its discretion by considering evidence outside the administrative record before the plan administrator, under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bell, No. 06-2802,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant's suppression motion was properly denied and there was sufficient evidence to support his 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(c), convictions, district court erred in calculating sentencing range. Firearm possession offenses should have been grouped together under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3D1.2(c).
|
|||||
| United States v. Levine, No. 06-1628,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not commit error where it admitted evidence of defendant's life style and SEC problems as not violative of Fed. R. Evid. 403, calculated the financial loss without the aid of the jury, and failed to give defendant notice of its intent to follow a variance in the Sentencing Guidelines under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
