 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dieser v. Cont'l Cas. Co., No. 05-2172,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellants filed a notice of appeal after a district court's second order, but did not file a notice after the district court's third and final order, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction because the first two orders were not final, appealable orders under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291 since certain damage amounts expressly remained unresolved.
|
|||||
| Lafromboise v. Leavitt, No. 04-3245,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: United States was properly granted summary judgment on a mother's medical malpractice claim under the FTCA on the ground that she failed to comply with state law requiring the timely filing of an expert affidavit because the law of the place, as stated in 28 U.S.C.S. § 1346(b)(1), was the law of the state, not the law of the tribal reservation.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. Francois, No. 05-1796,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the district court abused its discretion when it refused to consider the supplemental affidavit on the ground it contradicted the employee's earlier affidavit, the court held that there was still a genuine issue of fact regarding the actual ownership of the tools in question.
|
|||||
| Servewell Plumbing, LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 05-1548,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A subcontractor's suit against the general contractor's surety, brought in Arkansas despite a forum selection clause in the subcontract naming Florida as the exclusive venue, was properly dismissed for improper venue under M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., and neither public policy nor inconvenience warranted a different result on appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Myers, No. 05-1543,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence imposed on defendant after he pled guilty to unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm was remanded for further factfinding where the only identified 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factor that weighed toward a more lenient sentence was a lack of criminal history and the appellate court could not evaluate the nature of the offense conduct.
|
|||||
| United States v. Richardson, No. 04-3472,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was separately convicted under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) and (3) of being a felon in possession of a firearm by both a convicted felon and a drug user, the appellate court overruled its precedent and held that defendant's single act of possession did not support a separate conviction for each classification of § 922(g).
|
|||||
| United States v. Robinson, No. 05-2096,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of tax evasion, any failure to recuse based on witness relative was harmless, discovery of tax records was properly denied, no prosecutorial misconduct was shown, defendant had ample opportunity to challenge summary evidence, and testimony that defendant probably had more income was responsive to defense question.
|
|||||
| W. Platte R-II Sch. Dist. v. Wilson, No. 05-1973,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's judgment affirming an administrative panel's decision that a school district violated the procedural and substantive requirements of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C.S. § 1400 et seq., was reversed because the panel assigned the burden of proof to the district instead of the student's parents, who initiated the challenge to the student's IEP.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
