 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pony v. County of L.A., No. 03-56855,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The provisions of the retainer agreement that conveyed the client's right to seek or waive attorney's fees to the attorney were void under California law. The court reached this conclusion because 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 sounded in tort and California law prohibited a plaintiff from transferring her substantive tort claims.
|
|||||
| Sardari v. Chertoff, No. 05-15108,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Singh v. Gonzales, No. 03-74062,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where minor inconsistencies between alien's testimony and that of other witnesses, and inconsistencies within alien's testimony, did not go to heart of alien's asylum claim, and alien's testimony was sufficient to support his claim without supporting documentation, court granted alien's petition for review of denial of his asylum claim.
|
|||||
| Singh v. Gonzales, No. 03-74412,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where it was determined that the applicant had presented sufficient evidence that he was arrested twice and beaten soon after decrying specific incidents involving police abuse of certain members of a political party, the appellate court found that the IJ's adverse credibility determination was not well-founded.
|
|||||
| Stanley v. Trs. of the Cal. State Univ., No. 04-15134,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff student's Title IX claim for sexual harassment was properly dismissed as barred by the applicable California statute of limitations for personal injury; Title IX claims in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit were subject to the applicable state statute of limitations for personal injury.
|
|||||
| Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 04-35618,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied cigarette manufacturer's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Manufacturer's activities in Washington, including obtaining business license, maintaining office, advertising in local media, and targeting local consumers, constituted doing business within meaning of Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.080(10).
|
|||||
| United States v. Alferahin, No. 04-10590,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1425(a) was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial because § 1425(a) contained a requirement of materiality, it was error not to instruct the jury on this element of the crime, and counsel was ineffective when he declined an offer by the judge to instruct the jury on the element of materiality.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gilbreath, No. 05-10114,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where agents had not threatened defendant and they informed him that they did not have a search warrant, and the consent form stated that he had a right to refuse consent, the evidence supported a finding that defendant consented to the search of his apartment. Search did not exceed scope of consent. No Miranda warning was required.
|
|||||
| United States v. Skannal, No. 04-50210,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's prior juvenile offense resulted in an indeterminate sentence of up to four years in custody, that sentence triggered a two-point increase in defendant's criminal history score per U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1; it was the maximum of the indeterminate sentence that controlled, not the time defendant actually served.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
