 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Debrezion v. Gonzales, No. 04-74018,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Asylum application properly was denied based on adverse credibility determination because alien's failure to mention brother's murder on account of Eritrean heritage during initial interviews or written asylum application despite being asked if she knew anyone killed because of Eritrean heritage was omission that went to heart of persecution claim.
|
|||||
| Hardage v. CBS Broad. Inc., No. 03-35906,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Amended
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer fulfilled its duty to take preventive measures by adopting and promoting awareness of its anti-harassment policy, but by specifically requesting the employer not make use of its remedial and preventative procedures for sexual harassment, an employee unreasonably failed to make use of the employer's anti-harassment policies and procedures.
|
|||||
| Hawkins-Dean v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 04-55277,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where ERISA plan administrator originally held employee was not entitled to benefits under plan but later admitted eligibility after she filed suit, there was material evidence showing administrator's decision regarding amount of benefits due to employee was affected by self-interest; thus, decision as to amount should have been reviewed de novo.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Santa Clara County, No. 05-15037,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Muzquiz v. Clackamas County, No. 04-35787,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supervisor was entitled to qualified immunity on former employee's § 1983 claim that termination violated equal protection rights where supervisor's involvement was limited to accepting recommendation that employee be terminated based on information provided by others. There were no facts showing supervisor had intentionally discriminatory motive.
|
|||||
| Nguyen v. Runnels, No. 05-15183,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas petition properly was denied where state appellate court reasonably found that any violation of Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by exclusion of evidence that witness was on felony probation was harmless, as he was pivotal as to only one charge and other witnesses and evidence supported conviction of other charges.
|
|||||
| Olson v. United States, No. 03-15141,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rosas-Robles v. Gonzales, No. 04-17070,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not address alien's claim that § 440(d) of AEDPA could not retroactively bar eligibility for deportation waiver under former § 212(c) of INA on ground she committed underlying acts that led to conspiracy conviction before AEDPA's effective date, as she admitted she was part of conspiracy that committed illegal acts after effective date.
|
|||||
| Sundquist Homes Inc. v. Snohomish County, No. 03-35671,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of a county was affirmed because there was no legal authority holding that the exhaustion requirement of Washington's Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.060, did not apply since the developers challenged the county's compliance with the statutory requirements under Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.050(4).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
