 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Parette v. Virden, No. 04-3838,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: With respect to the due process and RICO claims, it could not have been genuinely disputed that the city attorney was merely performing duties that were integrally a part of the judicial process when he engaged in the challenged conduct, and he was therefore entitled to absolute immunity.
|
|||||
| Topete v. United States, No. 05-2108,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. High Elk, No. 04-3871, No. 04-3937,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err by including enhancement for use of dangerous weapon in calculating sentencing guidelines range because guidelines were applied in advisory manner. Even post-Booker, district court could find by preponderance of evidence facts regarding conduct for which defendants were acquitted to calculate advisory guidelines range.
|
|||||
| United States v. Timley, No. 05-1275, No. 05-1292, No. 05-1819,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) did not mention any vehicles, nor did it state any basis for motion other than that subject property was seized illegally, there was no need for appellate court to have hearing on whether defendant had right to have vehicles returned. There was no error in refusal to hold a hearing on motion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
