 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Miller v. Astrue, No. 05-4409,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court correctly upheld Commissioner of SSA's denial of DIB and SSI because a decision that an applicant was able to work despite fibromyalgia and back pain was supported by ALJ's consideration of an examining physician's report of the applicant's daily activities and lack of aggressive medical treatment and participation in an examination.
|
|||||
| Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, No. 04-2538,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In this § 1983 action, the City of Brooklyn Park was entitled to summary judgment on the claim of municipal liability because the evidence did not show that the City had a history of police officers unreasonably using canines to apprehend suspects without advance warning, such that the need for additional training was plain.
|
|||||
| United States v. Crump, No. 06-2422,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not abuse its discretion, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(c), in ordering defendant's federal sentence for firearm possession to run consecutively to his undischarged state sentence where the district court imposed the consecutive sentence upon consideration of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553.
|
|||||
| United States v. Goldsmith, No. 06-2965,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court was aware of its authority to depart under USSG § 5K2.13 but chose not to do so, a decision that the appellate court could not review on appeal. District court recognized that appellant was mentally ill at the time of plea and sentencing hearings, but found that his was not an unusual case justifying departure from guideline range.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mosqueda-Estevez, No. 06-3161,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to resentencing where he offered no reasoned arguments to support his claim that his sentence was unreasonable, and the appellate court's review of the record revealed none. While there was not a point-by-point explanation, the record revealed that the district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553 factors.
|
|||||
| Naing Tun v. Gonzales, No. 06-1477,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief was vacated and remanded because IJ's reliance on unreliable translation, focus on minutia, and prejudicial exclusion of affidavits of physician and country conditions expert on the contested issues of Burmese torture and surveillance denied fair hearing and alien's Fifth Amendment due process rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pepper, No. 06-2453,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellee's sentence reduction by a 59 percent downward variance was reversible error, because it improperly double counted his lack of a criminal history, and improperly considered his post-sentencing rehabilitation. The trial court failed to correctly apply 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), for violations of 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
