 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alander v. McGrath, No. 05-16200,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner was not entitled to federal habeas relief on claim that state trial court violated his due process rights by denying request for continuance to allow counsel more time to prepare because counsel had constitutionally adequate time to prepare when he was appointed 22 days before trial and case was factually simple and issues were clear-cut.
|
|||||
| Avagyan v. Gonzales, No. 05-71057,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ's reasoning did not support adverse credibility finding in denial of Armenian's request for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on political persecution; omission of injury from medical report, speculation about why wife was smiling in photograph, and failure to immediately cease political activity did not support finding.
|
|||||
| Browder v. Belleque, No. 05-36204,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal habeas petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d) because board's initial revocation of parole and imposition of 180-day prison sanction in 1995 put petitioner in position to realize that he had interest in challenging board's jurisdiction, but he did not act with due diligence when he failed to challenge petition until 1999.
|
|||||
| Garcia-Jimenez v. Gonzales, No. 03-74625,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b(c)(6) barred an alien from obtaining cancellation of removal if he had ever received a waiver of deportation, even if the waiver of deportation was granted in the same proceeding in which cancellation of removal was sought. The statute prohibited an alien from receiving both waiver of deportation and cancellation of removal.
|
|||||
| Grayson v. Tanaka (In re Grayson), No. 04-36105,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Debtor was ineligible for Chapter 13 relief under 11 U.S.C.S. § 109(e), as he owed over $290,525 in noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts on date he filed bankruptcy petition. Fact that county court ordered debtor to put funds he received from contracts into blocked trust account did not affect debt he owed to creditor, and debt was unsecured.
|
|||||
| Morales v. Gonzales, No. 05-70672,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Transsexual Mexican citizen was properly found removable under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(a)(2) based on conviction under Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68A.090; however, IJ improperly relied on facts unrelated to conviction in finding that conviction was for serious crime and that alien was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158, 1231.
|
|||||
| Syverson v. IBM, No. 04-16449,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Amended
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in finding that waiver form used by employer in connection with severance benefit package met "manner calculated" requirement of 29 U.S.C.S. § 626(f)(1)(A) and constituted "knowing and voluntary" waiver of employees' right to sue under ADEA; agreement's direction to consult attorney did not mitigate confusing waiver language.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bates, No. 06-50044,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Ford, No. 06-35000,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel was not ineffective for failing to inform petitioner that USSG § 2M1.1(a)(1) was not sufficiently analogous to seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2384 before he entered into plea agreement stipulating to that fact, as petitioner failed to show that, but for alleged error, he would have pled not guilty and insisted on going to trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
