 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bostic v. Goodnight, No. 05-1981,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Self-dealer's challenges to the propriety and the accuracy of the district court's performance of an equitable accounting on the limited issue of self-dealing, following a jury determination that he had breached his fiduciary duty to the corporation, failed because, inter alia, he waived his right to a jury trial on the self-dealing claim.
|
|||||
| Cox v. Norris, No. 05-3406,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was properly denied 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas relief on a Batson claim that he was denied due process by the peremptory removal of an African-American juror who was reluctant to impose the death penalty because he failed to overcome a presumption of correctness given to a finding rejecting an inference that the challenge was race-based.
|
|||||
| Porter v. Williams, No. 05-1862,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Richmond v. Higgins, No. 05-1206,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Brave Thunder, No. 05-3446, No. 05-3447,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for theft from an Indian tribal organization under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2 and 1163 were supported by sufficient evidence, including handwriting exemplars, consulting agreements signed by defendants and not approved by the tribal district, and returned checks tracking payment to them under the agreements.
|
|||||
| United States v. Drury, No. 05-3081,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence proved defendant's intent to defraud; he knew manufacturers only accepted expired drugs from pharmacies that had purchased them directly from manufacturer or from wholesaler, and he directed workers to return undocumented expired drugs on behalf of pharmacies that had not purchased them with false assertion that pharmacies had bought them.
|
|||||
| United States v. Montgomery, No. 05-4174,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(a)(6) and 371 conviction for conspiracy to make a false statement to acquire a firearm was supported by sufficient evidence, including testimony about his false statements to a dealer that he and his father were gun collectors and defendant's repeated visits to the shop and involvement in the purchase of the firearms.
|
|||||
| United States v. Moore, No. 05-2906,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Submitted , April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Olson, No. 05-3213,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm was affirmed. There was no duplicitous indictment because the possession or simultaneous receipt of multiple firearms constituted a single offense.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
