 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hannon v. Sanner, No. 04-2608,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of two police officers was affirmed since their alleged violations of the Miranda safeguards could not be the basis of a § 1983 case. The admission of an inmate's statements in a criminal case did not cause a deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution, within the meaning of § 1983.
|
|||||
| Heidelberg Print Fin. Am., Inc. v. Master Servs., No. 04-3087,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly affirmed a bankruptcy court's confirmation of a debtor's reorganization plan under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1129(a) because the creditor waived its right to challenge a revised ballot report, which established than an impaired class of unsecured creditors had voted to accept the plan, by failing to object to the report at the hearing.
|
|||||
| Master Servs. v. Empire Bank (In re Master Servs.), No. 04-2521,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mo. Ann. Stat. § 400.9-324(a) did not apply where corporation filed UCC financing statement more than 20 days after debtor received possession of equipment. Bank had properly perfected security interest which had priority over corporation's purchase money security interest because bank's description of collateral in its statement covered equipment.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Long, No. 05-2535,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Suvorov v. Gonzales, No. 04-3911,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lacked jurisdiction to hear alien's appeal, where alien argued operative legal issue before court was legal interpretation of what constituted "good faith" in connection with waiver petition under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1186a; whether qualifying marriage was entered into in good faith by alien spouse was discretionary factual determination of IJ.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hardesty, No. 05-3314,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Mugan, No. 03-4074,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant took photographs of himself having intercourse with his 13-year-old daughter, his conviction and sentence were upheld because, inter alia, 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2251(a) and 2252A(a)(5)(B) were not beyond the constitutional authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause and his sentence was reasonable under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553.
|
|||||
| United States v. Porchia, No. 05-3253,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in the admission of a complained-of hearsay statement at defendant's revocation hearing where, given the reliability of drug-test evidence, the questionable value in requiring a lab technician to testify as to positive lab test results was outweighed by the burden to the United States in producing such a witness.
|
|||||
| United States v. Richey, No. 05-3430,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized in the warrant search of his residence was properly denied because a detective's corroborated statement in the affidavit that there was a strong odor of ether emanating from the residence and other evidence that he was manufacturing methamphetamine established probable cause.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
