 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adams v. Speers, No. 05-15159,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly held that police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity in parents' § 1983 action alleging excessive force under U.S. Const. amend. IV arising from teenage son's shooting death; officer could not have reasonably believed that he could use deadly force to apprehend driver who failed to pull over for traffic violation.
|
|||||
| Barnett v. Cigna Healthcare, No. 05-15081,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contract was ambiguous, as it was unclear whether clause allowed employer to terminate tenured doctor without cause with 120 days' notice or whether clause applied only to untenured employees and once doctor became tenured, tenure policy applied such that he could be terminated only for cause. Given ambiguity, issue properly was submitted to jury.
|
|||||
| Becker v. Gonzales, No. 05-76977,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Crimes alleged to be grounds for deportability did not disappear from alien's record for immigration purposes. Even if alien were able to waive his 1978 conviction under § 212(c) of the INA, it would nonetheless remain an aggravated felony for purposes of precluding the alien's application for cancellation of removal because of his 2004 conviction.
|
|||||
| Becker v. Gonzales, No. 05-76977,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An IJ did not err in shifting the burden to an alien facing removal due to a conviction for a controlled substance offense pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) given the supportive evidence in the record, specifically an FBI rap sheet indicating a conviction for possession of marijuana for sale, along with the alien's own admissions.
|
|||||
| Fodor v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., No. 05-56655,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although district court misstated date that plaintiff filed complaint in order dismissing his invasion of privacy claim, that claim was untimely. Plaintiff alleged defendants were unlawfully intercepting private conversations in 1995 to further murderous plot, but he did not explain why he could not have discovered alleged wrongdoing before 2004.
|
|||||
| Fodor v. Time Warner, Inc., No. 06-55526,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Fodor v. Time Warner, Inc., No. 06-55525,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kumar v. Gonzales, No. 03-74659,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA abused discretion in refusing to apply equitable tolling of limitations on filing of motions to reopen, as aliens reasonably relied on representative's assurances that dismissed proceedings would be reopened. Unknown attorney's signature on document would not have put reasonable persons in aliens' position on notice of need to hire new counsel.
|
|||||
| Lapekas v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n (In re Lapekas), No. 04-56795,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer was excused from its duty under Cal. Ins. Code § 11580.2(k) to inform the insured of the relevant time limits because she was represented by counsel. Thus, a bankruptcy court properly had rejected the insured's argument that the insurer had forfeited its arbitration rights.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
