 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Comer v. Micor, Inc., No. 03-16560,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ERISA-plan participant could not be compelled to arbitrate claim against investment company for breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 1109, 1132(a)(2); participant was nonsignatory to investment management agreements that contained arbitration clauses, and he was not bound as a matter of equitable estoppel or as a third-party beneficiary.
|
|||||
| Goldyn v. Hayes, No. 04-17338,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for drawing and passing checks with insufficient funds on deposit, under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.130, was vacated in habeas action despite fact inmate indisputably did not have sufficient funds to cover checks as that alone was not a crime; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.130 was only violated if she wrote checks without sufficient funds or credit.
|
|||||
| Hasan v. Galaza, No. 04-17146,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where inmate failed to show that potentially favorable statement, in form of possible admission by victim, was either favorable to him or relevant to determination of his guilt, or that he suffered prejudice, and victim did not testify at trial, nor did prosecution refer to additional statement by victim in any way, habeas relief properly denied.
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. Gonzales, No. 02-72011,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Board affirmed without opinion, the court did not know whether the Board's decision was based on the reviewable or unreviewable ground, or both. The court vacated the Board's decision with respect to the cancellation of removal claim and remanded to the Board with instructions to clarify.
|
|||||
| Lata v. Gonzales, No. 02-73665, No. 04-74491,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board of Immigration Appeals failed to issue a decision that fully explains the reasons for denying the alien's first a motion to reopen and failed to address the alien's evidence and provided no specific reasons for its findings that the alien had not made out a case for relief. On remand the Board was to provide specific reasons for its decision.
|
|||||
| United States v. Blandin, No. 05-10316,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to seven-level reduction for voluntary return under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2P1.1(b)(2); regardless of whether he formed subjective intent voluntarily to surrender, return to custody could not be voluntary under § 2P1.1(b)(2) as willingness to cooperate arose in connection with arrest for trespassing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bloom, No. 05-50475,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's escape conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 751 and 4082(a) was affirmed because failure to return to a community correction center, a form of custody, established probable cause to arrest him on suspicion of escape whether or not his arrest was pursuant to a warrant or not and his double jeopardy rights were not violated by the conviction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Laprada, No. 04-30448,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Lester, No. 05-30187,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 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. |
