 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Guinn v. Kemna, No. 06-1344,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 was properly denied because the state court's adjudication did not result in a decision that was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law regarding the admission of hearsay statements against interest by a third party.
|
|||||
| Steele v. County of Beltrami, No. 05-3154,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were properly granted summary judgment in plaintiffs' action challenging county ordinance prohibiting smoking in public places and places of work as violating their rights under Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments because plaintiffs had no constitutional right to smoke or control smoking on premises they had open to public.
|
|||||
| United States v. Daily, No. 05-3952,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA) based on not being tried within 180 days because the 180-day period only began to run when the prosecutors and the court were actually notified of defendant's speedy trial demand, not when defendant notified his warden.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hanson, No. 06-2332, No. 06-3200,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: First defendant never objected to the factual findings which supported the four-level offense level increase and the facts showed that he possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense; second defendant did not show that the supplemental instruction was prejudicial, and the district court's rulings were affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hinton, No. 06-4017,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application of use-of-a-computer enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.2(b)(5) (2001) was not error on ground that defendant received child pornography through mail, not via his computer, because § 2G2.2(b)(5) applied to one who received child pornography that he received a notice or advertisement of through use of computer.
|
|||||
| United States v. McCracken, Nos. 06-3659/3664/3667,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly sentenced on his bank robbery conviction as a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 based on two 1988 bank robbery convictions because district court properly counted 1988 robberies separately as they were not consolidated, and they were committed within days of each other in non-contiguous states.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ross, No. 06-2975, No. 06-2995,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was affirmed. However, defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing because the district court erred in imposing a suspended sentence in the absence of the statutory authority to do so and the fact that defendant experienced a religious awakening was not a relevant sentencing consideration.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wright, No. 06-1149,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 7, 2007, Filed
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. |
