 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Elnashar v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, No. 05-3861,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was entitled to summary judgment in an employment discrimination case under 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1981 and 2000e because many of the events the employee experienced were not adverse employment actions and the employee failed to show that the employer's legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were pretextual.
|
|||||
| Grayson v. Ross, No. 04-3577,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a certified question, the Arkansas Supreme Court adopted the federal deliberate indifference standard as the proper standard to apply to claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (Act). Thus, a federal district court applied the correct standard to a pretrial detainee's state claims under the Act.
|
|||||
| Page v. Astrue, No. 06-2139,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Administrative decision denying an application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income was supported by substantial evidence; for example, the findings, such as the conclusion that the claimant's mental-emotional nature was non-severe, were supported by the medical opinions and record evidence.
|
|||||
| Rios v. United States, No. 06-3704,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied a motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to request a proffer meeting to satisfy U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a), because appellant failed to show his counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient or that it resulted in prejudice.
|
|||||
| United States v. Flowers, No. 05-4050,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentencing court did not err when it took into consideration an agreement between defendant and the State of Missouri when it sentenced defendant within the advisory guidelines range. The agreement was a cognizable part of defendant's history and characteristics, and therefore a proper consideration under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)(1).
|
|||||
| United States v. Heavner, No. 06-3325,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because district court calculated advisory guideline range, refuse to depart because defendant's criminal history was accurately represented, considered 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, noted presumption of reasonableness afforded guideline sentence, and found that sentence in guidelines range was appropriate.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lewis, No. 06-3801,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Scientific analyses of evidence such as fingerprints, a blood sample, clothing, hair were not critical stages of the proceedings against defendant; thus, the collection of a buccal swab and the government's subsequent use of DNA results did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lightfoot, No. 05-3864,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's trial for, inter alia, murder a federal witness, the trial court did not violate defendant's Confrontation Clause rights by denying certain questions. Questions about a telephone call would not have shown that an associate tried to influence defendant and questions about an uncharged double murder would have caused undue prejudice.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ward, No. 06-3366,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly denied defendant's pretrial motion, seeking to suppress drug evidence found during traffic stop. Circumstances surrounding stop supported state trooper's suspicions of criminal activity unrelated to traffic offense, trooper acted reasonably in speaking to defendant's passenger, and total length of detention was reasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
