 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Int'l Paper Co. v. MCI Worldcom Network Serv., No. 02-2856,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1141(d)(1)(A), confirmation of a reorganization plan discharged a debtor from any debt that arose before the date of such confirmation. Assuming plaintiff had a trespass claim, it accrued in 1987 and 1988 when defendant installed a fiber optic cable and marked its route with conspicuous signs, and was discharged in bankruptcy.
|
|||||
| Jefferson Smurfit Corp. v. United States, No. 05-2466,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for taxpayer was reversed. Consideration of relevant statutory sections governing corporate applications for tentative refunds, including I.R.C. § 6411, supported conclusion that Congress did not intend a final Tax Court decision for the carryback year to bar IRS from assessing deficiency based on an erroneously carried back amount.
|
|||||
| United States ex rel. v. St. Luke's Hosp., Inc., No. 05-2445,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.S. §§ 3729-3733, the district court did not err in refusing to relax the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), in order to permit the relator to plead his complaint generally at the outset and to fill in the blanks following discovery, because relaxation was not appropriate under the Act.
|
|||||
| United States v. Harkreader, No. 05-2195,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Jones, No. 05-2758,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A witness's testimony that defendant punched the victim, removed her pants, laid on top of her, and made "humping motions" was substantial and sufficient evidence of penetration and sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2246(2)(A) to support defendant's conviction for aggravated sexual abuse.
|
|||||
| United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., No. 05-1598,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking a new trial was upheld because appellant did not advance a persuasive explanation for its failure to obtain or produce the "new" evidence before the Consent Decree hearing in a CERCLA matter. Denial of its Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) motion was also upheld as, inter alia, fraud was not shown.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rivera, No. 05-2143,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government was entitled to have defendant resentenced because the district court did not indicate why a downward departure was appropriate, what non-guidelines 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors predominated, and which arguments it adopted; thus, the appellate court could not determine from the inadequate record whether the sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Warford, No. 05-2698, No. 05-2859,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of Fourth Amendment-based motion to suppress evidence was affirmed because, inter alia, the investigation in the case was sufficient to make objectively reasonable the officers' reliance on the warrant, and marijuana and paraphernalia in the house were admissible as evidence seized in good faith reliance on a warrant to search for firearms.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
