 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cermak v. United States, No. 06-1686,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agency did not abuse its discretion under APA, 5 U.S.C.S. § 706(2)(A), in denying the request of a certificate holder's son and grandson to reopen its decision that the Indian land certificates were cancelled because they made their untimely request more than a year after the proceedings to which they were strangers and presented no new evidence.
|
|||||
| Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 06-1776,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Remand was ordered where a cigarette company did not raise the ground of federal officer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1442(a) until a second belated removal motion that was not raised within the 30 day limit in 28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(b). An order in another case was not an "other paper" under which a new 30 day period could begin to run.
|
|||||
| Droste v. Julien, No. 06-2385,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Making architect's pretrial motion to disqualify homeowners' lawyer in a negligence action effective immediately was abuse of discretion because Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3.7 did not apply to pretrial proceedings; however, the error was harmless because the homeowners did not indicate what their lawyer would have done differently as to pretrial matters.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Astrue, No. 06-1081,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of an application for benefits under the Social Security Act was affirmed because the ALJ's credibility determination was based on valid reasons; testimony provided at the administrative hearing differed significantly from the claimant's reports to physicians on important issues such as the frequency and extent of his seizure activity.
|
|||||
| Travis v. Astrue, No. 06-2142,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On an earlier remand pursuant to sentence 6 of 42 U.S.C.S. § 405(g), the district court retained jurisdiction to review a Social Security benefits determination on the merits; plaintiff was not disabled under 42 U.S.C.S. § 423(d)(1)(A), based on substantial, albeit contradictory evidence in the administrative record.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bass, No. 06-1240,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court reversed an order granting a new trial because, even assuming the witness's testimony was perjured and this issue was properly before the trial court, defendant provided no proof of the Funchess requirement that the prosecution knew or should have known of the perjury. Outcome was the same even if order was based on weight of the evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gastineau, No. 05-2527,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A jury's verdict of not guilty on conspiracy drug charges was not inconsistent with a guilty verdict for possessing ephedrine with knowledge that it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(c) when the conspiracy charges required proof of elements not found in the possession charge.
|
|||||
| Wilkinson v. Shackelford, No. 06-2018,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Personal injury plaintiff, who had been driving defendant owner's truck with an allegedly defective tire, stated a sufficient claim under Missouri law against the owner so that the district court erred in not rejoining the owner and denying the driver's motion to remand the case to state court was proper under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1447(e).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
