 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Elnashar v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, No. 04-3973,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee's appeal from an interlocutory discovery order, which denied his motion to compel production of FBI reports and testimony of an agent, in his discrimination action against an employer was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not a final judgment and the collateral order doctrine did not apply.
|
|||||
| Elnashar v. United States DOJ, No. 04-3980,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The DOJ and FBI were properly granted judgment on the pleadings of an employee's unexhausted Privacy Act and FOIA claims because there was no jurisdiction to order expungement of his FBI records when he did not request that the FBI amend them and because he did not administratively appeal the denial of his request for records.
|
|||||
| Lefkowitz v. United States, No. 04-1696,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if an inmate, by failing to raise the issue on direct appeal, had not procedurally defaulted a claim that a denial of Criminal Justice Act funds for accounting experts was "court-induced" ineffective assistance of counsel, he was properly denied habeas relief because the shortage of funds was caused by his failure to fund his own defense.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. TranSystems Corp., No. 05-1964,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Stringer v. St. James R-1 Sch. Dist., No. 05-1182,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion of a school district and state education department to dismiss an IDEA claim was properly granted because the denial of a tape recording was harmless error and a mother and autistic student did not sufficiently plead a connection between the student's harassment and a denial of a free appropriate public education.
|
|||||
| United States v. Atteberry, No. 05-2631,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not commit plain error when it imposed 120-month sentence on federal child pornography conviction to be served consecutively to undischarged state sentence on ground USSG § 5G1.3(b) required concurrent sentences. Offense level was increased because of conduct in commission of federal offense and not for conduct in state offenses.
|
|||||
| United States v. Counce, No. 05-3562,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Operation of handgun could be relevant to whether it was designed to expel projectile by action of explosive, as required to be "firearm" under 18 U.S.C.S. § 921(a)(3). Where defendant did not argue missing safety was result of design, evidence of inoperability was properly excluded because evidence would have yielded substantial juror confusion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Destefano, No. 05-4152,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of probation was not an abuse of discretion because substantial evidence recovered by law enforcement during a search of defendant's home, including 50 blank identification cards and a license and social security card that were not hers, supported the finding that she possessed equipment for the purpose of committing a future fraud.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gardner, No. 05-2638,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly admitted statement by defendant's sister that she introduced defendant to friend of drug suppliers. Even if statement was only marginally in furtherance of conspiracy under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), any error was harmless because other admissible testimony established that friend directly supplied defendant with drugs.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
