 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fews v. Perez, No. 05-16937,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a prisoner sued a prison official under § 1983, alleging that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by the official's deliberate indifference, summary judgment was improperly granted to the official based on qualified immunity as his belief that the prisoner would receive medical treatment upon transfer was not objectively reasonable.
|
|||||
| Kay v. Placer County, No. 05-15191,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County did not engage in abusive executive action when it granted adjacent property owners' Minor Boundary Line Adjustment applications because the granting of the applications violated plaintiff property owners' rights to due process and equal protection. The applications were not a guise to subdivide the adjacent property owners' property.
|
|||||
| Marshall v. Schriro, No. 04-17185,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona prisoner's § 2254 habeas petition was improperly denied; U.S. Const. amend. XIV rights were violated based on constructive denial of assistance of counsel during proceeding equivalent to first appeal of right because counsel filed no-merit brief, no court found appeal frivolous, and prisoner did not have opportunity to file his own brief.
|
|||||
| Singh v. Gonzales, No. 05-73445,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported an adverse credibility determination where the testimony of an applicant seeking asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158 regarding material events, specifically the disappearance and death of his brother, lacked specificity and internal consistency.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fischer, No. 04-50319,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to Speedy Trial under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3161 et seq. was not violated where much of delay was attributable to the requests of defendant's counsel for numerous continuances, and to defendant himself for becoming fugitive, and filing interlocutory appeal which court later dismissed for failure to prosecute.
|
|||||
| United States v. Herrera, No. 04-50000,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of crimes related to operation of business that sold large quantities of pseudoephedrine; sufficient evidence showed that defendant conspired to achieve methamphetamine related object of conspiracy, jury instructions sufficiently described required level of intent, and limitation on cross-examination was not error.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jernigan, No. 05-10086,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Orosco, No. 05-56383,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Perez, No. 06-50119,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prosecutor's comment on defendant's decision not to testify allegedly violating her Fifth Amendment due process rights and a comment vouching for a witness were both isolated and did not constitute plain error; futhermore, reversal would have been inappropriate because there was overwhelming evidence of guilt.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
