 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rivera v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 05-15492,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When insureds claimed they incurred damages when washing machine overflowed, but jury found that insureds failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that water damage occurred as they had claimed, insureds failed to establish the occurrence forming the basis of their claim. Thus, insurer was entitled to judgment on their breach of contract claim.
|
|||||
| Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., No. 06-17366,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee's putative class action citing violations of state labor and unfair business practices laws was improperly remanded as it was wrongly held that employers, seeking removal, had to establish the inapplicability of a home-state controversy exception in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4, to jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Shelby v. Hill, No. 05-35899,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Shelby v. Hill, No. 05-35898,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Thiebes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 05-35172,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of $ 1.7 million in attorney fees to plaintiff under Or. Rev. Stat. § 20.075(2)(d) was affirmed because, although award appeared disproportionate to amount recovered, corporation presented formidable defense and plaintiffs had to defend dozens of substantive motions. Under Oregon law, vigorous defense might justify disproportionate fees.
|
|||||
| Uiki Ofa Teaupa v. Gonzales, No. 05-73253,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA had to consider, in first instance, whether alien's admission that a court had determined that he had engaged in conduct that violated portion of order involving protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to protected person could be used to determine removability under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii).
|
|||||
| United States v. Bates, No. 06-50062, No. 06-50073,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Calderon, No. 05-50337, No. 05-50352,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no denial of a fair trial by the denial of a motion to sever the trial two defendants from that of a third co-defendant because defendants' defenses were not antagonistic to the point of being irreconcilable and mutually exclusive such that the acceptance of the co-defendant's theory by the jury precluded acquittal of the defendants.
|
|||||
| United States v. Fenney, No. 06-50185,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appellate court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing where the trial court's comments indicated that the court considered sentences within the calculated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range and did not consider a sentence outside that range, thus impermissibly treating the Guidelines as mandatory, rather than advisory.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
