 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dawson v. City of Seattle, No. 03-35858,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no Fourth Amendment violation where law enforcement interests in safely and effectively conducting searches of two boardinghouses for rat infestations amply justified the police detaining tenants during the search where the search was for a serious public health hazard, against the property manager's will, and pursuant to a valid warrant.
|
|||||
| Sadoski v. Mosley, No. 04-15447,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action was properly dismissed because a judge was entitled to absolute immunity since, although he acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he re-sentenced an individual based on an error in her criminal history in that the error did not work to her detriment, the judge did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Galindo, No. 04-30502,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A limited remand for resentencing was appropriate where the district court sentenced defendant under a mandatory USSG regime and it could not have been determined on the record whether the sentence would have been materially different had the court treated the USSG as advisory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hoskins, No. 05-30138,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to disclose the identity of a confidential informant because defendant did not show that the informant had information that was relevant, helpful, or essential to a fair trial; whether the informant had other information besides some impeaching an adverse witness was pure speculation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ventura, No. 05-50281,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The United States was not entitled to reversal of defendant's sentence for possessing stolen mail because the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 in resolving the disputed issues as to the presentence report and imposed a reasonable sentence within the guidelines range and in reliance on 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors.
|
|||||
| Virtual Fonlink, Inc. v. Bailey, No. 04-55408, No. 04-55414,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to set aside two default judgments under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) was denied because, although the gross negligence of an attorney could have met the standard under Rule 60(b)(6), no relief was available since a patent holder had contracted for the unprofessional conduct of the attorney.
|
|||||
| Weiss v. Kuck Trucking, Inc., No. 04-35547,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Removal of plaintiffs' state action was improper because district court lacked jurisdiction where complaint filed in state court did not amount to a challenge to remedial action, as complaint did not directly relate to goals of a cleanup and in no way challenged anything concerning a remedial investigation/feasibility study in which EPA engaged.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
