 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dockery v. Houston, No. 06-1873,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A pretrial detainee's § 1983 action was properly dismissed by summary judgment when there was no evidence that the named defendants knowingly disregarded the detainee's medical needs, there was no unconstitutional custom of ignoring inmate's requests for emergency medical care, and a post-hospitalization lockdown was not unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| Kent v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., Nos. 06-2466/06-2467,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Collateral estoppel precluded insurance agent's loss of license claim against an insurance company when state court had found that the agent's misconduct justified license revocation, and the company's failure to provide proof that checks were sent by private courier at the agent's mail fraud trial was not deceit under S.D. Codified Laws § 20-10-2.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 06-1399,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Tafolla, No. 06-1062,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Young, No. 06-2331,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence of 30 months for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) was upheld because defendant's prior conviction for tampering in the first degree, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.080.1(2) (2000) was a crime of violence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4).
|
|||||
| Whited v. Waddle, No. 06-2759,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner failed to state a due process claim in his § 1983 action, in which he alleged that he was wrongly confined to punitive isolation after he failed to report on the hoe squad, because any due process violation that occurred during his disciplinary hearing was cured when the disciplinary conviction was later reversed.
|
|||||
| Curtiss v. Higgins, No. 05-4118,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Entzi v. Redmann, No. 06-2116,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal of the dismissal of his civil rights claims failed because, inter alia, the mere filing of a petition to revoke probation, in response to the inmate's refusal to participate in sex offender treatment, was not a consequence serious enough to compel him to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Olivera-Mendez, No. 06-1910,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed because several circumstances caused the stop of defendant to take longer than a usual "routine" traffic stop and the canine sniff was lawful where the dog jumped and placed his front paws on the body of the car in several places during a walk-around sniff that took less than one minute.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
