 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rodriguez v. Gonzales, No. 05-1526,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied because a reasonable fact finder could have determined that the alien neither suffered past persecution nor maintained a reasonable fear of future persecution, and he thus did not qualify as a refugee entitled to asylum. The alien also failed to establish that he was eligible for CAT relief.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cochenour, No. 05-3552,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convicted defendant's wife's claim to forfeited property under 21 U.S.C.S. § 853(n) was properly denied. Because defendant had sole ownership of the forfeited property, the wife lacked the requisite ownership interest under Missouri law for her and defendant to hold a tenancy by the entirety in the forfeited property.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia, No. 05-3102, No. 05-3755,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motions to suppress were properly denied where no Fourth Amendment violation occurred because, inter alia, defendant one's vehicle was never stopped by police, defendant one did not contest validity of consent to search, and, even if there was an investigatory stop, stop was justified because officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
|
|||||
| United States v. Larison, No. 05-2023,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Robinson, No. 05-3801,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 petition was dismissed because an inmate failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel where no appeal was filed; the inmate sat silent after his attorney advised him that there was no basis for an appeal since the best outcome possible had already been achieved.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wood, No. 05-3581,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for attempting to board an aircraft with a concealed weapon in violation of 49 U.S.C.S. § 46505(b)(1) was affirmed because it was not error to refuse to excuse a juror whose father had died the night before deliberations started where the jury returned a guilty verdict before the situation became a conflict.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. City of Des Moines, No. 05-1444,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Serious issues existed regarding testimony presented by an employee because the witness could only vaguely recall one of several persons who allegedly made sexually harassing statements and he did not adequately explain the context in which the statements were made. District court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the evidence.
|
|||||
| Yanke v. City of Delano, No. 05-2274,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of a city on a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action was affirmed because the Fourth Amendment was not implicated where an ordinance required homeowners to have an inspection by a plumber since the plumber's acts could not have been attributed to the city since it was the homeowner who initiated an arrangement with a private plumber.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
