 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McDonald v. Barnhart, No. 05-2044,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of disability insurance benefits was properly affirmed where ALJ gave multiple valid reasons for finding claimant not entirely credible, ALJ considered the requisite credibility factors and explained his credibility findings, and there was no error in ALJ's decision to discount treating physician's opinion that claimant was fully disabled.
|
|||||
| United States v. Barajas-Perez, No. 05-1634,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Green, No. 05-3073,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to suppress, U.S. Const. amend. IV, was appropriate, as discovery of cocaine base under defendant's seat resulted from driver's independent consent to search vehicle; driver stated officers could go ahead with search, he had nothing to hide, and he had nothing to worry about. Sentence at high end of guidelines range was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Smith, No. 05-1028,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense counsel's motion to withdraw was granted because there were no nonfrivolous issues to appeal. Defendant's sentence did not violate the Blakely decision since it was based on an uncontested prior felony drug conviction and drug quantities he admitted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
