 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fry v. Pliler, No. 04-16876,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 was denied because the exclusion of the testimony of a witness regarding overhearing a conversation where another person confessed to committing a murder, although reliable, was harmless because it did not have a substantial and injurious effect in determining the jury's verdict.
|
|||||
| Khaligh v. Hadaegh (In re Khaligh), BAP No. CC-05-1148-KPaB,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an arbitrator found that a bankruptcy debtor defamed a creditor, the arbitration award in favor of the creditor was not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(6) since the adjudicatory nature of the arbitration provided preclusive effect and the arbitrator's finding of defamation established that the injury was willful and malicious.
|
|||||
| Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Parker, No. 03-16518, No. 03-16620,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a decedent made an invalid beneficiary designation on his beneficiary designation form for his ERISA-governed life insurance policy, it was necessary under 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 1002(8), 1104(a)(D)(1) to turn to the governing plan documents to determine whether the default beneficiary was the participant's estate or his widow.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ye, No. 05-10073,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lacked jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1835 of Economic Espionage Act over interlocutory appeal of order granting defendants' motion for pre-trial depositions of Government witnesses because Government had already disclosed trade secrets; however, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651 mandamus relief was appropriate because order violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 15.
|
|||||
| Najeeullah v. Newland, No. 04-56021,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 habeas petition was properly denied because he did not establish a prima facie case for an equal protection claim that the peremptory challenges of African-American male jurors violated Batson when he failed to establish facts that would permit any statistical comparison of African-American males.
|
|||||
| United States v. Eichert, No. 05-50288,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child pornography conviction was affirmed. Based upon the information presented in the affidavit, the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed; affidavit stated that defendant's computer screen displayed about 100 newsgroup listings, including newsgroups regarding "teen, preteen, sex, children and young girls."
|
|||||
| United States v. Jordan P. W., No. 05-30078,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not err in denying defendant juvenile's motion to suppress a statement made during noncustodial post-polygraph questioning on the ground that the consent he and his aunt gave to a polygraph examination did not extend to post-polygraph questioning, as polygraph examination was not search or seizure subject to Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
