 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allstate Ins. Co. v. Buffo, No. 04-17390,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The parents of minor children injured in an auto accident had not alleged any negligence on the part of the insured baby-sitters that did not arise out of their use of their car (the baby-sitters' homeowners policy had an automobile exclusion). Therefore, the insurer was entitled to summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
|
|||||
| Blanck v. Hager, No. 05-15606,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When district court held that former employee was policymaking or confidential employee as matter of law, but he only challenged determination that he was policymaker, employee forfeited an issue that was dispositive of entire First Amendment retaliation claim by failing to challenge determination that he was confidential employee as matter of law.
|
|||||
| Canal Props., LLC v. Alliant Tax Credit V, Inc., No. 05-15253, No. 05-15459,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Removal provision in a partnership agreement was enforceable pursuant to Cal. Corp. Code § 15619 because provision was not unreasonable at the time agreement was made when evidence supported district court's findings that provision was a standard term in the industry and that provision was negotiated by the parties, who were represented by counsel.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 05-35690,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Exhibits summarizing an insured's medical expenses were properly excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 1006 where there was a good faith dispute whether the insured had produced all of his medical bills. It was reasonable for the court to require that the documents referenced be produced for the insurer's inspection before admittance of the summaries.
|
|||||
| EEOC v. Am. Home Furnishings, Inc., No. 05-15743,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Issuing injunction in favor of employee who was discriminated against based on her race when employer failed to promote her was appropriate because victims of employment discrimination were entitled to injunction against future discrimination. Employer failed to demonstrate that there was no reasonable probability of further noncompliance with law.
|
|||||
| Hernandez-Gil v. Gonzales, No. 04-72303,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After it was determined that applicant for cancellation of removal did not voluntarily waive his right to counsel, applicant was prejudiced because of that denial of his right to counsel. Applicant had to show extreme or unusual hardship for either of his two sons, and a trained immigration lawyer was better suited for the job than the applicant.
|
|||||
| Jinsheng Jiang v. Gonzales, No. 05-73421,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a document was submitted to corroborate the alleged acts of persecution that an alien endured, and thus was central to the alien's claim, substantial evidence supported the alien's lack of credibility where there were inconsistencies between the alien's testimony and the document. He was not entitled to relief under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158.
|
|||||
| Mathis v. City of Oakland, No. 05-15369,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer had probable cause to make arrest when dispatch reported that arrestee stabbed neighbor's daughter during altercation, officer saw daughter's puncture wound, daughter and mother told him arrestee caused wound, and officer heard arrestee say she did not mean to stab anyone. Reasonably prudent person would believe arrestee assaulted daughter.
|
|||||
| Narayan v. Gonzales, No. 03-74502,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported denial of asylum and withholding of removal based on adverse credibility finding because fact that alien sent daughters back to Fiji despite her claim that she was raped in Fiji undermined credibility of her claim that she had in fact been raped. Also, her descriptions of their "sickness" were vague and inconsistent.
|
|||||
| Or. Natural Res. Council v. Allen, No. 05-35830,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An Incidental Take Statement was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.S. §§ 1531-1544, because the underlying Biological Opinion had been withdrawn, it failed to provide a numerical limit on take without explaining why such a limit was impracticable, and it could never trigger the reinitiation of consultation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
