 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fischer v. Andersen Corp., No. 06-2273,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former employee claimed a violation of § 510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1140, on the basis that he was forced into early retirement in order to keep his pension benefits, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the employer because the employee had not been subjected to an adverse employment action.
|
|||||
| United States v. Myers, No. 06-2565,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to interstate transportation of a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, the district court properly declined to apply a vulnerable victim enhancement under USSG § 3A1.1(b)(1), due to the minor's ADHD, because there was no evidence that defendant knew or should have known of the minor's ADHD.
|
|||||
| United States v. Plooster, No. 06-2687,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing because defendant's arguments that he was denied effective representation and did not have notice of the enhanced sentence did not establish a "fair and just reason" for withdrawal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).
|
|||||
| Beavers v. Bretherick, No. 05-4244,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court abused its discretion in granting detainee's Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) motion for voluntary dismissal because he did not present explanation for his desire to dismiss action, he exhibited marked lack of diligence in prosecuting case, and appellants expended effort and expense in preparing for trial and had filed for summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Collier v. Norris, Nos. 06-2519/2630,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of coram nobis relief was not based on unreasonable determination of facts, nor was it contrary to, or unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. It was reasonable for Arkansas Supreme Court to conclude from its application of Brady that disclosure of suppressed evidence would not have produced different trial result.
|
|||||
| Flores v. Gonzales, No. 06-1629,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court vacated BIA's order denying aliens' asylum claim and remanded to BIA for further proceedings because court could not review IJ's adverse credibility finding as BIA did not adopt IJ's credibility finding or add its own reasoning to support decision, and thus, court could not review BIA's decision that record failed to establish persecution.
|
|||||
| United States v. Harris, No. 06-2709,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 151-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction to distributing cocaine base, a violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), was affirmed because there was more than adequate support for findings related to drug quantity and role enhancement, and district court considered appropriate 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors.
|
|||||
| United States v. Moore, No. 06-2336,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B) because defendant was adequately advised of the sentencing ramifications of his plea, testified that he understood those ramifications, and, thus, did not show a fair and just reason for withdrawal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
