 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Reynolds v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Group, Inc., No. 03-35695, No. 04-35279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681 et seq., requires that an insurance company send a consumer an adverse action notice whenever a higher rate is charged because of credit information it obtains, regardless of whether the company had previously charged the consumer a lower rate.
|
|||||
| United States v. Clark, No. 04-30249,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Congress did not exceed its authority under U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3 to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations in enacting 18 U.S.C.S. § 2423(c), (f)(2), which made it a felony for U.S. citizens to travel in foreign commerce to engage in illegal commercial sex act with minors; defendant was properly convicted based on his conduct in Cambodia.
|
|||||
| United States v. Martinez-Rosales, No. 05-30385,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed where district court (1) properly considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors in determining defendant's sentence, (2) properly considered the purposes of sentencing, as applied to defendant, in determining the sentence imposed, (3) calculated USSG range, and (4) imposed a sentence that was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ortega-Ascanio, No. 05-50117,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there were some equities in defendant's favor, but also equities that weighed against granting him relief under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and defendant had committed recent, serious criminal offenses, an IJ's failure to inform defendant that he was eligible for § 212(c) relief caused no prejudice.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Fairman, No. 04-16019,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
