 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mosby v. Norris, No. 04-2051,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Murphy v. City Utils. of Springfield, No. 05-1285,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rotskoff v. Cooley, No. 05-1855,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a jury found an owner liable for securities fraud and the district court denied the owner's motion for a directed verdict, the verdict was upheld because, inter alia, the owner waived his argument regarding sufficiency of the evidence since the issue was not developed in his briefs as required by Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A).
|
|||||
| United States v. Ayon, No. 05-2714,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction on amphetamine counts was affirmed where a reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the United States was only required to prove defendant knowingly possessed a controlled substance, not that he knew he possessed amphetamine. District court did not commit error in setting the sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Barron, No. 05-2079,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court acknowledged defendant had filed a motion under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(b)(1) for a downward departure based on the overrepresentation of his criminal history. It clearly recognized its authority to depart and simply chose not to do so. Under the circumstances, its refusal to depart was not reviewable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cain, No. 05-2612,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not impose an unreasonable sentence and defendant had not overcome the presumption that his sentence within the advisory USSG range was reasonable where the district court properly considered the USSG range and applied the other factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), including the nature, seriousness, and circumstances of the offense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rogers, No. 05-1861,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant contended his criminal history category of IV substantially overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history. District court clearly recognized its authority to depart under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(b)(1) and simply chose not to do so. Under the circumstances, its refusal to depart was not reviewable.
|
|||||
| Vaughn v. Greene County, Nos. 04-3916/04-4068,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a pretrial detainee repeatedly vomited in his cell and eventually died of a heart attack, the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity as to the sister's Fourteenth Amendment claim under § 1983 because, inter alia, there was no evidence that the sheriff knew of the decedent's serious medical needs and deliberately disregarded them.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
