 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Charette, No. 06-30069,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence of witness tampering, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1512, where: (1) defendant intentionally harassed the victim; (2) the harassment began only after the victim reported his conduct to the authorities; and (3) defendant had previously threatened that he would make the victim's life a living hell if she told anyone about his abuse.
|
|||||
| United States v. Chavez-Amaro, No. 05-10697,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it admitted an unredacted material witness stipulation stating that defendant and co-defendant were "in control" of residence where defendant was arrested for harboring alien under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). Stipulation was valid and binding absent evidence that defendant involuntarily entered into stipulation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jerra, No. 06-50081,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Witness's testimony that defendant had temper and gambling habit, carried weapon, and pelted cars with rotten eggs when cut off by drivers was inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 404 because testimony was evidence of defendant's bad character and any probative value testimony did have was substantially outweighed by risk of prejudice it posed.
|
|||||
| United States v. McMillion, No. 06-30044,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Redfield, No. 06-30365,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court erred in imposing an enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5) for defendant's sentence for depredation of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1361 because there was no evidence that the firearms in the police vehicle served to facilitate or embolden defendant's unlawful conduct.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ruelas-Lopez, No. 05-50740,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Ruvalcaba, No. 06-50256,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress marijuana obtained during border search of defendant's car properly was denied. Because drug dog alerted officials to back seat, officer found back seat "solid to touch," and he found package that subsequently tested positive for marijuana after he lifted backseat up, officer had reasonable suspicion to open up rest of backseat.
|
|||||
| Weiss v. N. Cal. Retail Clerks Unions , No. 05-15489,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ERISA pension plan was entitled to summary judgment in surviving spouse's action under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(e) because summary plan document (SPD) was subject to two reasonable interpretations as to when spouse had to be married to participant for benefits to be awarded, which created ambiguity and not material conflict between SPD and plan document.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
