 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arina v. Gonzales, No. 04-73113,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although petitioner contested the applicability of his conviction for tampering with evidence to his immigration proceedings, his arguments regarding this third conviction were irrelevant as petitioner was already removable under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) on the basis of two shoplifting convictions. Theft was a crime of moral turpitude.
|
|||||
| Houston v. Castro, No. 04-16687,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner asserted on appeal of denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion excusable neglect as ground for relief from dismissal of habeas petition but he failed to argue excusable neglect and argued only extraordinary circumstances in Rule 60(b) motion, issue of excusable neglect was waived for appeal, as it was not presented to district court.
|
|||||
| Santos v. People of Guam, No. 03-70472,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By amending 48 U.S.C.S. § 1424-2 to take away the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction to review by writ of certiorari all final decisions of the highest court of Guam, Congress had taken away the court's power to hear the case. Therefore the court had to dismiss a criminal appeal pending before it.
|
|||||
| Sumareh v. Doe (In re $ 80,045.00 in United States Currency), No. 05-15564,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4301 et seq. forfeiture action, State did not present sufficient evidence to show narcotics dog's alert on money transported by claimant was sophisticated dog alert, which required showing dog would not alert to cocaine residue found on currency in general circulation. Thus, there was no probable cause to seize currency.
|
|||||
| United States v. Adams, No. 04-30339,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(I) by failing to advise defendant that, as a direct consequence of a guilty plea, he would be subject to a mandatory minimum fine under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E1.2(a) if he had the ability to pay.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bush, No. 05-10185,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probation officer had probable cause to believe defendant resided at a certain address where defendant, after the probation officer entered the residence, indicated to probation officer that defendant's room was back bedroom. Therefore, search of bedroom was lawful probation search that did not violate defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nobriga, No. 04-10169,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Uribe v. Autozone, Inc., No. 04-55323,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was not entitled to judgment on pleadings on employee's claim right to privacy was violated when employer investigated his relationship with co-worker that allegedly began after co-worker was no longer employee's subordinate, as court could not conclude such investigation could never violate right to privacy under Cal. Const. art. I, § 1.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
