 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bailey v. Schmidt, No. 06-1848,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal inmate's Bivens claims against federal agents were subject to dismissal because the inmate made no specific allegations as to how the agents personally violated any of his constitutional rights during a search, and his allegation that one agent denied him medical care was conclusory.
|
|||||
| Fjelsta v. Zogg Dermatology, PLC, No. 06-1965,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of summary judgment to the employer on the Minnesota Whistleblower claim was affirmed; the purpose of the employee's letter was not to expose illegality. Rather, it merely expressed her dissatisfaction with the employer's conduct and policy in an attempt to deflect the performance review's criticism of her knowledge of sterile procedures.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. 05-4082,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sewall v. Csernansky, No. 06-2680,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Abdul-Aziz, No. 06-3032,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) was upheld, the district court's sentence was remanded because its observation that the jury must have found defendant's testimony to be false was insufficient to impose the obstruction of justice enhancement for perjury contained in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1.
|
|||||
| United States v. Arnold, No. 06-2606,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of appellant's arguments, because district court properly and sufficiently considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a). Record did not support appellant's claim that she was "mere courier," and she admitted she possessed drugs with intent to distribute them for personal gain.
|
|||||
| United States v. Boesen, No. 06-3290,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in entering judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). Government showed that defendant acted as his physician-brother's office manager and that he was trained to use billing codes. Based on evidence, reasonable jury could find defendant guilty of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 371, 1347, conspiracy and health care fraud crimes.
|
|||||
| United States v. Collins, No. 07-1201,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Fazio, No. 06-3028,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While disclosure would have been a better course of action, a district court judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to disclose that a government witness was his wife's cousin, or recuse himself under 28 U.S.C.S. § 455; the witness was not particularly significant to the trial and his testimony was actually somewhat helpful to defendant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
