 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adams v. State Dep't of Health Servs., No. 05-56857,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's motion to amend was properly denied where she failed to show good cause for her failure to comply with a scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 where she delayed filing a motion to amend until three months after the deadline although she had discovered facts giving rise to a potential amendment more than two months prior.
|
|||||
| Alonso v. Summerville (In re Summerville), BAP No. CC-06-1109-BKMo,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where debtor's chapter 13 plan allowed for her to make payments to creditor on her residence outside the plan, the bankruptcy orders issued under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1327(a) did not have preclusive effect on the dispute as to the loan payments and deed of trust, and those issues were properly to be decided in a state court action.
|
|||||
| Myron v. Terhune, No. 04-15770,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Myron v. Terhune, No. 04-15770,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Classification of prisoner at "level IV" prison rather than at "level III" prison did not present atypical and significant hardship, as there was no showing that conditions at level IV differed significantly from those imposed upon inmates at level III. Thus, regulations governing classification did not create Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest.
|
|||||
| Myron v. Terhune, No. 04-15770,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Myron v. Terhune, No. 04-15770,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erroneously interpreted 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(e) in dismissing prisoner's overcrowding claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A on ground that prisoner failed to allege physical injury. District court also erred in dismissing U.S. Const. amend. I claim before requiring officials to offer justification for information access restriction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gant, No. 06-10237,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not show that district court's alleged consideration of impermissible factors in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(e) in imposing 18-month sentence on revocation of supervised release seriously affected fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Thus, court declined to notice alleged error on plain error review.
|
|||||
| United States v. Issa, No. 06-10220,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On plain error review of claim that district court violated 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(e) by considering improper factors in imposing 24-month sentence on revocation of supervised release, defendant did not show alleged error affected fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings in case. Thus, court lacked discretion to notice error.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jackson, No. 06-50216,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly decided that it had no jurisdiction to hear defendant's motion to withdraw guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e) on a limited Ameline remand. District court's task was complete when it determined that it would not have sentenced defendant to a materially different sentence under advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines system.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
