 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Armstrong, No. 05-10213,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal, Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, was properly denied as his confession to the crime of sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C.S. § 2242(2)(B), was sufficiently corroborated by victim's testimony that 1) she passed out drinking; 2) she awoke to act of anal penetration; and 3) the next day she had soreness in her vagina and anus.
|
|||||
| United States v. Robertson, No. 05-50235,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Rutledge, No. 05-10060,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in holding that there was probable cause to believe that all of the assets of the non-profit corporation were subject to forfeiture under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2461(c) based on the alleged mail and wire fraud of defendant. Those assets did not constitute "proceeds" that were "obtained" by defendant as a result of his alleged fraud.
|
|||||
| Yasharal v. County of L.A., No. 04-55607,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a prisoner visitor alleged that she was searched in a manner that resulted in unreasonable exposure in the view of a male deputy, the individual defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity as to the claims under the Fourth Amendment and § 1983, because, inter alia, it was not a mere pat-down search.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
