 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bravo-Pedroza v. Gonzales, No. 03-73999,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where BIA vacated a removal order and terminated removal proceedings after the appellate court held that petty theft, Cal. Penal Code § 666, did not qualify as aggravated felony, res judicata barred the Secretary of Homeland Security from initiating a second deportation case on the basis of a charge that could have been brought in the first case.
|
|||||
| Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 04-16688, No. 04-16720,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court acted within its discretion in concluding that it would be better to handle a case as a class action instead of clogging the federal courts with innumerable individual suits litigating the same issues repeatedly. There was no abuse of discretion in finding that plaintiffs had met the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
|
|||||
| Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, No. 03-70674,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After applying the Chevron two-step approach to determine if 8 C.F.R. § 241.8 was valid, the court determined that a previously removed alien who reentered the United States illegally was not entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether to reinstate a prior removal order.
|
|||||
| Roush v. Berosini, No. 05-15112,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse discretion when it awarded $ 256,087 in attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiff's attorneys under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 because plaintiff's attorneys provided adequate and clear information to describe fees expended and defendants presented no evidence to show that requested fees were unreasonable, redundant, or excessive.
|
|||||
| Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith's Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., No. 05-15360, No. 05-15543,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court lacked jurisdiction over appeal of summary judgment in contract case because notice of appeal was untimely; pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(2) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii), judgment was entered as matter of law 150 days after docketing of order, and Rule 4(a)(1)(A) required notice to filed within 30 days thereafter.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cohen, No. 05-10151,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant who was convicted of bank fraud failed to establish a violation of his U.S. Const. amend. VI right to self-representation because his complaints about food and sleep deprivation during mistrial did not establish lack of adequate food and sleep two month later at trial. Also, denial of "extra library time" did not violate Sixth Amendment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ingham, No. 05-50698,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3) requirement was met in sentencing defendant for conspiracy to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841, 848; finding that defendant "exercised control over others" was unnecessary because district court properly found that defendant "organized or led" conspiracy for purposes of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Ingham, No. 05-50698,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When district court properly concluded that defendant organized or led drug conspiracy of five or more participants to import drugs from Canada, that was sufficient to sustain four-point increase of offense level under USSG § 3B1.1(a) without regard to whether defendant controlled day-to-day operations of those he recruited to implement the scheme.
|
|||||
| United States v. United States Dist. Court, No. 06-73622,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, 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. |
