 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Darden v. Mitchell, No. 05-17390,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied the habeas petition because alleged error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict because the jury's finding of second-degree murder "was not substantially swayed" by the erroneous inclusion of an intent to kill element in lower offense of voluntary manslaughter.
|
|||||
| Northwest Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Bonneville Power Admin., No. 06-70430, No. 06-71182,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under 5 U.S.C.S. § 706(2), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) acted contrary to law when it concluded that congressional committee report language required transfer of Fish Passage Center's functions; decision also violated "consistency" requirement of 16 U.S.C.S. § 839(h)(10)(A). Lack of reasoned analysis made decision arbitrary and capricious.
|
|||||
| Siskiyou Reg'l Educ. Project v. Goodman, No. 06-35266,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where environmental groups opposed a fire recovery plan, especially regarding dead wood salvage, under NEPA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 4231 et seq., the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C.S. § 1600 et seq., and a U.S. Forest Service plan, summary judgment was properly granted to defendants, who properly considered relevant factors and consequences.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bird, No. 06-30041,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(e) was constitutional because Booker and Apprendi were not implicated in supervised release revocation or associated penalties, as they were part of original sentence and required no impermissible judicial factfinding. Sentence imposed on defendant on revocation of his supervised release did not expose him to additional penalty.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gomez, No. 05-30437,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was reversed because the court failed to instruct the jury to begin deliberations anew, and because the court did not ensure that the alternate juror had refrained from discussing the case with anyone prior to being impaneled, as such, the court violated both requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(c)(3).
|
|||||
| United States v. Goodwin, No. 05-50934,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The defense's explanation for striking a juror because the juror was from an area "so far removed from" the situation before the court was facially race-neutral; the district court erred by holding otherwise. The case was remanded for a complete Batson analysis to determine if the peremptory challenge violated the Equal Protection Clause.
|
|||||
| Velasco v. Gonzales, No. 04-76690,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b(b) when he pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377 and admitted to conviction during hearing before IJ. Conviction rendered him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(a)(2)(A), so he was ineligible for cancellation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
