 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| United States v. Lopez-Molina, No. 02-50513,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed defendant's conviction of aiding and abetting a bank robbery because he waived his argument that a district court erred in granting the government's motion in limine to introduce his prior burglary convictions for purposes of impeachment when he admitted those convictions on direct examination.
|
|||||
| Wallace v. City of San Diego, No. 03-56552,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Amended
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Wallace v. City of San Diego, No. 03-56552,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Amended
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly awarded judgment as matter of law to city in a former employee's case alleging violation of his rights under the USERRA because the jury's findings of constructive discharge and retaliation in violation of 38 U.S.C.S. § 4311(b) were supported by substantial evidence, which included a pattern of discrimination and retaliation.
|
|||||
| Wynn v. Giurbino, No. 06-55603,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if petitioner did not procedurally default gender discrimination claim, he was not entitled to habeas relief because prosecutor's use of phrase "women who are overweight" merely described jurors at issue, who happened to be women. Prosecutor provided good faith reason for striking jurors, so there was no violation of Equal Protection Clause.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
