 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Butz v. Mendoza-Powers, No. 06-71137,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California inmate was not required to obtain 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(b)(3)(A) authorization for second habeas petition where district court dismissed first 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition for failure to pay filing fee; request was construed as successful petition for mandamus to direct district court to consider merits of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. Lamarque, No. 04-55752,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While trial counsel elicited testimony from a state inmate that caused him, per Cal. Evid. Code § 912, to waive his Cal. Evid. Code § 980 marital privilege, habeas corpus was improperly granted to the inmate as counsel's conduct was not unreasonable under the facts and it was not ineffective assistance, even though he said that he made a mistake.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. Barnhart, No. 04-17414,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly upheld Commissioner of Social Security's determination that disability benefit claimant was not disabled; ALJ considered all impairments, properly found claimant not credible with regard to extent and nature of pain, properly limited symptoms in hypothetical, and cited legitimate reasons for discounting physicians' opinions.
|
|||||
| Rizo v. Gonzales, No. 05-76359,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When BIA suspended aliens' attorney from practice before BIA but did not inform aliens that they were proceeding without counsel or obtain knowing and voluntary waiver of right to counsel in seven months that passed before BIA denied appeal from denial of cancellation of removal, BIA violated aliens' Fifth Amendment due process right to counsel.
|
|||||
| Singh v. Gonzales, No. 05-72261,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported IJ's findings that alien's story was implausible, particularly that alien could have suffered the level of injury he claimed and still have been able to fly to another country so soon after his alleged beating; IJ could require corroboration and make an adverse credibility determination in its absence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Daane, No. 05-50282, No. 05-50283, No. 05-50295, No. 05-50309, No. 05-50346,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse discretion in rejecting defendants' proffered "claim of right" instruction in trial for attempted extortion under Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1951; instruction was not supported by law or facts because it did not extend to threats of physical violence that were used in attempt to recover money invested in Ponzi scheme.
|
|||||
| United States v. Daane, No. 05-50282, No. 05-50283, No. 05-50295, No. 05-50309, No. 05-50346,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly rejected defendants' proffered factual impossibility instruction, as impossibility was not a defense to conspiracy or attempt under the Hobbs Act. The court also properly instructed the jury concerning the mens rea for extortion and the requisite interstate commerce element.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
