 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Garner v. Mo. Dep't of Mental Health, No. 04-3013,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Any error in denying an employee's request to amend a complaint to add a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 retaliation claim against a superintendent was harmless because the jury's finding that the employee would have been terminated in the absence of the employer's retaliation would have disposed of the claim against the superintendent, its sole decision-maker.
|
|||||
| Jamerson v. Rental Mgmt. Inc., No. 05-1536,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Royal Ins. Co. v. Duhamel Broad. Enters., No. 05-2539,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer was properly granted a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify the insured for the collapse of a tower because the unambiguous policy language excluded damages from alteration, which included the construction crew's faulty replacement of the braces that caused the collapse.
|
|||||
| State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nat'l Research Ctr. for College & Univ. Admissions, No. 05-1588,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Event though payments to the Revolving Fund were not "damages" under the policy, under Missouri law, a duty to defend arose even though claims beyond coverage were present with potentially insured claims, and thus, the insurance company had a duty to defend against the Assurance presented by the Missouri Attorney General.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hurley, No. 04-3566,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3 did not apply to defendant's situation where defendant's conduct on January 23, which led to his state conviction, was not the basis for an increase in his federal offense level because amount of drugs to which he stipulated in his plea agreement did not include amount involved in January 23 transaction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 05-1620,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant led an informant to a trailer where a co-conspirator sold the informant drugs, testimony regarding defendant's prior drug dealing was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) because, inter alia, it was relevant to the material issue of whether defendant had the requisite intent to enter into a conspiracy to distribute drugs.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ketz, No. 04-3352,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Leyva, No. 05-1344,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Piedra, No. 05-2442,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not err in denying a motion to suppress methamphetamine uncovered in a vehicle search incident to defendant's arrest because the controlled drug purchase in progress and the officer's observation of defendant leaving a residence where a purchase had been made gave the officer reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
