 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Canady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 05-1137,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of employer was affirmed. Even if employee was meeting employer's expectations, employee did not show there were facts permitting inference of racial discrimination. Employee failed to show employer treated other insubordinate employees differently or that employer's reason for termination--insubordination--was pretextual.
|
|||||
| Payne v. Kemna, No. 04-3856,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court improperly dismissed a federal habeas petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1)(A) where an inmate's state appeal was considered pending for purposes of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(2) until a mandate on a state postconviction motion was issued and he had filed his petition one year after the state court issued its mandate.
|
|||||
| Ripplin Shoals Land Co., LLC v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, No. 05-1289,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where, in a prior opinion, district court did not have the authority to issue what was, in essence, an advisory opinion on any separate future applications filed by a developer, regarding the building of a span bridge, and the prior decision was not a final decision on the merits, res judicata did not bar the developer's action.
|
|||||
| Solano-Chicas v. Gonzales, Nos. 04-3373/04-3755,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The alien's petition to review of the decisions of the BIA ordering the alien removed and denying his motion to reopen was denied. Contrary to the alien's argument, the BIA could deny status and order an alien removed. The BIA's power was not just one of merely affirming or reversing IJ decisions; it could order relief itself.
|
|||||
| United States v. Levering, No. 05-3094,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly prohibited defendant from having any contact or residing with any minor female children unless he obtained prior, written approval from his probation officer where he had pled guilty to forcible rape of a female juvenile and the court had retained the ultimate authority over all of his supervised release conditions.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lewis, No. 05-2248,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Morin, No. 05-1786,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Vasquez-Cardona, No. 05-3059,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence for unlawful reentry was reasonable because it was at the low end of the guideline range and the district court understood its power and discussed its reasons for not departing, including defendant's criminal history and the fact that Congress had determined that any disparity resulting from fast-track programs was not unwarranted.
|
|||||
| United States v. Washington, No. 04-3829,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
