 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beggs v. Gilkey, No. 05-3683,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the county had discretion to add and remove services from the "wrecker list" and the log contained neither "particularized substantive standards guiding a decision maker" nor limited discretion, no property right in receiving work was conferred onto a towing company owner when he was added to the list; his 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claims failed.
|
|||||
| Brown v. United States, No. 04-3257,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To prevail on his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion, appellant had to establish the district court erred in concluding his ineffective assistance claim was without merit and abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. No hearing was required when his allegations could not be accepted as true because they were contradicted by the record.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Coca-Cola Enters., No. 05-3513,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Title VII plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden of proof because he did not introduce any evidence as to the treatment of similarly situated employees outside of his protected class. His hostile work environment claim failed, as the occasional comments would not have permitted a decision that the conditions of his employment were altered.
|
|||||
| Moses v. Gonzales, No. 05-2277,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA's determination that Nigerian Christian was not eligible for asylum under Attorney General's discretion to grant same under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1), was supported by substantial evidence. Because he failed to meet the lesser burden of proving eligibility for asylum, he failed to prove a right to withholding of deportation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bell, No. 04-3557,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's prior conviction for second-degree burglary of a commercial building under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.170 was a generic burglary and, thus, properly deemed a crime of violence under the "otherwise involves" provision of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a)(2) that increased his base offense level.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cadenas, No. 05-1450,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States, the district court's conclusion that defendant's willingness to stipulate to deportation did not warrant a sentence below the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual range was reasonable because removal was a foregone conclusion under the facts of the case.
|
|||||
| United States v. Morales, No. 05-2560,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine was properly denied downward adjustments under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 3B1.2, 3E1.1(a) for his alleged minor role in the offense and acceptance of responsibility because he exercised supervision of his coconspirator and put the government to its burden of proof at trial.
|
|||||
| United States v. Simpson, No. 05-3071,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
