 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Doe v. United States (In re Grand Jury Investigation), No. 05-17136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Amended
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grand jury witness could not evoke 18 U.S.C.S. § 3504 as a defense to the district court's judgment finding him in civil contempt. He had not shown that the government's questions were the primary product of unlawful surveillance or were obtained by the exploitation of any unlawful surveillance.
|
|||||
| Hardage v. CBS Broad. Inc., No. 03-35906,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Second Amendment
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer successfully asserted Ellerth/Faragher defense in male employee's action alleging sexual harassment by female supervisor under 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2 of Title VII; employee failed to establish constructive discharge, and employer responded reasonably. Employee also failed to establish causal link for purposes of § 2000e-3 retaliation claim.
|
|||||
| Hardage v. CBS Broad., Inc., No. 03-35906,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lantagne v. Gorman, No. 04-35719,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where COA was granted under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2253(c)(2) as to whether prosecutor's closing argument as to meaning of reasonable doubt violated petitioner's due process rights and Sixth Amendment right to fair trial, claim that closing argument included inflammatory language did not concern meaning of reasonable doubt; so it fell outside COA's scope.
|
|||||
| Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. City of Seattle, No. 04-35307,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where city acted as regulator when it imposed safety standards on pipeline corporation after accident where section of the corporation's hazardous liquid pipeline exploded, killing three people, city's actions did not fall within market proprietor exception and were preempted by Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, 49 U.S.C.S. § 60101 et seq.
|
|||||
| United States v. Anderson, No. 05-30062,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded where district court did not make express findings, under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B), to resolve the disputed facts in presentence report, and district court's general findings that it "accepted" the findings contained in presentence report did not suffice to respond to objections with particularity.
|
|||||
| United States v. Atul Bhagat, No. 03-10029,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence showed that defendant was aware of confidential information prior to executing his trades, he provided false information to the SEC, and friends made similar purchases shortly after defendant, there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1505, and ones for tipping and insider trading.
|
|||||
| Watson v. Weeks, No. 04-35704,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State residents who had received home and community-based services as alternative to Medicaid institutional nursing facility services, but who lost that eligibility when state's Medicaid program was scaled back, did have private right of action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 to enforce 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396a(a)(10), but not under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396a(a)(17).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
