 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chavez-Acevedo v. Gonzales, No. 03-74623,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's argument for remand to the BIA to consider repapering relief was rejected; because petitioner failed to demonstrate continuous physical presence and failed to demonstrate extreme hardship to himself or a qualifying relative, petitioner's ineligibility was not solely because of the stop-time rule.
|
|||||
| City & County of San Francisco v. PG&E Corp., No. 03-16976, No. 03-17051,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State lawsuits for restitution by California government entities under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 for the benefit of the public constituted police or regulatory power actions that could not be removed to bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1452(a).
|
|||||
| D'Angelo v. Crofts, No. 05-35022,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of defendants was reversed in part because two students' claims were not time barred and the Eleventh Amendment did not bar their claims against defendants in their individual capacity; therefore, they could proceed against defendants in their individual capacities.
|
|||||
| Fessahaie-Ghebremarian v. Gonzales, No. 03-72738,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an asylum applicant had not suffered past persecution and all of the evidence in the record showed that the ethnic persecution he feared in Ethiopia ended with the end of a war in 2000, the record did not compel a finding that the applicant had objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Wash. State Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. Pension Plan, No. 04-35526, No. 04-35828, No. 04-35798,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for children on their claims for survivor benefits from their deceased father's ERISA plans was erroneous; even if a marital dissolution order was a QDRO, only assignment to former spouse, not to participant's children, could override surviving spouse's right to a qualified preretirement survivor annuity under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1055.
|
|||||
| Hanson v. Mahoney, No. 02-35795,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where issuing a certificate of appealability was within the scope of the authority granted to magistrate judges under the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 636, and where Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-105 was adequate to bar the inmate's claim and the claim was procedurally defaulted, habeas corpus petition was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Kolob Heating & Cooling v. Ins. Corp., No. 03-17272,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Pacheco v. Gonzales, No. 04-70874,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As IJ failed to consider a psychologist's report stating that petitioner's intellectual limitations left her vulnerable to dishonest attorney, which may have caused her to be deported, remand was ordered to determine whether she acted with due diligence when she filed her motion to reopen six and a half months after receiving new charging document.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Salish Kootenai College, No. 03-35306,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tribal court had jurisdiction over nonmember's civil action brought against a tribal college because the nonmember allowed the action to continue in the tribal court after the parties were realigned and the claims arose out of activities conducted or controlled by a tribal entity on tribal lands.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
