 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Byers v. Augusta Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 06-3599,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 7, 2007, Submitted, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court erred in denying principal's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which sought reconsideration of order denying his request for front pay award after he prevailed in § 1981 race discrimination suit. District court misapplied law in concluding that it could not award front pay for period of time before principal was reinstated to old job.
|
|||||
| Hassan v. Gonzales, No. 05-2084,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien, a native of Somalia who had suffered female genital mutilation (FMG), showed a well-founded fear of persecution under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101 based on her FMG. She was entitled to asylum unless the government could show that conditions in Somalia had changed to such an extent that the alien no longer had a well-founded fear of persecution.
|
|||||
| Simpson v. Thomure, No. 06-2396,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed an employee's negligence claim against her work supervisor because the supervisor was entitled to workers' compensation immunity and there was no allegation in the complaint of the kind of purposeful, affirmatively dangerous conduct that would trigger the application of an exception to that immunity.
|
|||||
| Trinity Prods. v. Burgess Steel, L.L.C., No. 06-2252, No. 06-2365,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action to collect the unpaid balance of a contract, neither the purchaser's defenses not its counterclaims were barred by the contract's five-day notice provision because it did not eliminate the buyer's rights under Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 400.2-607 and 400.2-608 to revoke an acceptance or preserve other remedies under certain circumstances.
|
|||||
| United States v. Goodfellow, No. 06-2560,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Miller, No. 06-1407,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's challenge to mandatory minimum 15-year sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e) was denied. Pursuant to Eighth Circuit precedent, his three prior auto theft convictions constituted "violent felonies" under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e)(2)(B). Defendant was properly sentenced as armed career criminal for his 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) offense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Newman, No. 06-1731,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez, No. 06-3267,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine was affirmed because it was objectively reasonable for the officers to rely on the validity of the search warrant and there was sufficient evidence to support the role enhancement where a cooperating witness described defendant as "the top dog."
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
