 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blue Moon Entm't, LLC v. City of Bates City, No. 05-2793,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court erred in finding no irreparable harm for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Bates City, Mo., Municipal Code § 406, which was a prior restraint that the owner could challenge facially because it required an adult business to obtain a conditional use permit before engaging in a First Amendment protected activity.
|
|||||
| Mountain Pure, LLC v. Turner Holdings, LLC, No. 05-2213,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because no valid final judgment had been entered in the state court action, district court erred by holding res judicata barred a plaintiff's federal claims. Even assuming res judicata did apply, Arkansas excepted from its grasp claims specifically reserved by a court's dismissal "without prejudice." Also, district court's abstention was improper.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Am. Ins. Co. v. W & G, Inc., No. 05-3037,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the primary insurance followed the vehicle and a truck owner's insurer failed to show an insured contract, it was properly determined to be the primary insurer and liable for the amounts incurred by the excess insurer, the employer's insurer, in the defense and settlement of a personal injury action against the employee driving the truck.
|
|||||
| Skokos v. Rhoades, No. 05-2374,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Business owners' 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action was properly dismissed as the attorney who had advised the police that their countertop electronic machines were illegal was entitled to qualified immunity, the advice constituted probable cause for the warrantless seizures of the machines, and there was no deliberate indifference to their rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Denton, No. 05-1978,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Lazenby, No. 05-2214, No. 05-2216,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prison sentence was 83 percent below the 70-month bottom of defendant's advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range, and this extraordinary reduction was not supported by extraordinary circumstances. It resulted in unwarranted disparities among defendants with similar records who had been found guilty of similar conduct, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)(6).
|
|||||
| United States v. Norris, No. 04-2073,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the United States knew the benefits it was securing and the rights it was foregoing and the consequences of breaching the agreement, the only remedy for defendant was specific performance of a plea agreement the United States sought to withdraw after all parties involved had signed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Roberson, No. 04-3190, No. 04-3675,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to support their convictions. However, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find both defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and of aiding and abetting the possession of crack cocaine.
|
|||||
| United States v. Spencer, No. 05-2283,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant argued that the failure to provide him with a copy of Attachment D at the outset of the search violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 41. That argument failed because Rule 41 applied exclusively to federal searches. Also, the evidence was also sufficient to uphold his convictions related to his home drug manufacturing operation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
