 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gossai v. Bruning, No. 06-2321,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Pederson v. Fabian, No. 06-2582,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary was not Brady material wrongfully withheld from defendant because for a jury to have found that the witness testified in accordance with a script, the jury would have had to ignore the details of the witness's testimony that were not found in the summary. Defendant's other allegations of misconduct were similarly unconvincing..
|
|||||
| Smeltzer v. Medtox Labs., Inc., No. 06-3204,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Castillo-Ramirez, No. 06-1956,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Soby, No. 05-3290,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for possession with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), was affirmed because district court properly calculated defendant's criminal history points, making him ineligible for safety-valve relief and subject to mandatory minimum sentence.
|
|||||
| Maxfield v. Cintas Corp., No. 06-2626,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the employer's precise arguments were advanced as grounds for affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment on the first appeal, and the evidence of record was not substantially different from that considered in the first appeal, the appellate court remanded the case for trial on the employee's USERRA claims.
|
|||||
| United States v. Collins, No. 06-3219,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reasonable suspicion supported removal of Federal Express package from store because prior to arriving at store, police knew that drug supplier was sending cash via Federal Express, knew that it was a common method of exchanging drug sale proceeds, and possessed reliable information that defendant had used Western Union for such purpose in past.
|
|||||
| United States v. Francis, No. 06-1532,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government provided defendant with constitutionally adequate notice of forfeiture proceeding where, while defendant was a fugitive, written notice was sent to several addresses believed to be his and was published for three successive weeks in the New York Times; government did not need to provide notice after he was taken into custody.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hilliard, No. 06-3270,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Search of defendant's residence did not violate Fourth Amendment as police officers reasonably believed that woman who answered the door at defendant's residence and invited officers inside had authority to consent to search because it appeared that she resided there and defendant never opposed woman's invitation for officers to enter.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
