 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Irianto v. Gonzales, No. 06-1690,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien was denied relief on judicial review under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158(a)(2) and 1252(a)(2)(B) and (D), where he failed to show that problems with his in-court translator resulted in such prejudice as to constitute a violation of his due process rights. He was also not eligible for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3).
|
|||||
| Stewart v. Domtar Indus., No. 06-2264,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted employer summary judgment on ADA claim because employee conceded that his EEOC discrimination charge was untimely under 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 2000e-5(e)(1), 12117(a) and his ignorance of the law and pro se status did not justify equitable tolling where he was aware of his termination and could have timely filed the charge.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carter, No. 05-3391, No. 06-1365,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded to the district court for resentencing because 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1)(A)(I) and (C)(I) required a 5-year sentence on Count 4 to be served consecutively to the 262-month sentence, and a 25-year sentence on Count 10 to be served consecutively to the total sentence after factoring in Count 4.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia, No. 06-1804,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was barred from challenging the factual basis for his sentence as presented in his presentence investigation report, where he stipulated to various drug quantities as part of his plea agreement for convictions under 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, plus a firearms charge.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 06-1724,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellants' action for breach of a surface lease contract was time-barred, as they failed to bring suit within Arkansas' five-year statute of limitations. Appellants' cause of action accrued by April 1997, when appellants' counsel sent a demand letter alleging that soil had been removed from their property. Appellants brought suit in July 2004.
|
|||||
| United States v. Miller, No. 06-1781,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from above-guidelines 60 month sentence that was imposed for perjury offense was denied. Although district court erred in combining its consideration of appropriateness of guidelines departure with its consideration of whether variance was warranted under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3353(a), error was harmless because sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
