 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| United States v. Lima-Pacheco, No. 06-3184,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Madrigal-Lopez, No. 06-1646,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly applied reckless endangerment enhancement under USSG § 3C1.2 because district court did not clearly err in finding credible deputy's testimony regarding defendant's admission to driving vehicle that was involved in high-speed chase that involved careening around curves on highway and ended in vehicle crashing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sorrells, No. 06-3195,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because district court did not commit clear error in finding that quantities of crack cocaine found on defendant or at his residence in January and June 2003 were part of same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as October 2003 offense of conviction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(2).
|
|||||
| United States v. Watkins, No. 06-3020,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for a new trial was properly denied by the district court because defendant could not show that his conviction was contrary to the weight of the evidence, or that his counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to call several witnesses, or that his sentence was improper or unreasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wilcox, No. 06-2350,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While evidence was sufficient for defendant's sexual abuse of a minor conviction, the part of the restitution award under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act that represented the lost income of the victim's mother was not authorized under the statute because the statute permitted lost income only for the person who suffered bodily injury.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wilkinson, No. 06-2866,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's discretionary decision not to depart under the Sentencing Guidelines was unreviewable, because the district court clearly understood its authority to depart but chose not to do so, finding appellant's post-offense rehabilitation efforts not extraordinary. District court's sentencing decision was not unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Werdehausen v. Benicorp Ins. Co., No. 06-2818,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurance company was improperly granted summary judgment on a claim under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B) for benefits under a group health plan, as it was necessary to determine whether the company had the option of retroactively increasing premiums instead of automatically rescinding coverage due to a claimant's nondisclosure.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
