 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Acosta v. Gonzales, No. 04-72682,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien who was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) was eligible for penalty-fee adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1255(i) based on his marriage to a United States citizen; the alien, however, was not eligible for the extreme hardship waiver of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(a)(9)(B).
|
|||||
| BNI Enters. v. Holmes, No. 04-56347,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former employee who left her employer to start a competing professionals networking business was properly granted summary judgment on copyright infringement claims where her brochures, pamphlets, and diagrams of "centers of influence" were not substantially similar to the employer's brochures, pamphlets, and diagrams of "contact spheres."
|
|||||
| Broderick v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, No. 04-56057,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Stockholders' claims alleging violation of 15 U.S.C.S. § 78j(b) by a brokerage company failed to meet the particularity requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and 15 U.S.C.S. § 78u-4(b) because they failed to detail particular evidence demonstrating that brokerage made materially false or misleading statements while possessing requisite scienter.
|
|||||
| Cybernet Ventures, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co., No. 04-55882,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The different standards for willfulness in Cal. Ins. Code § 533 and 17 U.S.C.S. § 504(c)(2) meant that a coverage question would not be litigated in an underlying copyright action against an insured and there was no conflict of interest requiring the insurer to provide independent counsel under Cal. Civ. Code § 2860(b).
|
|||||
| Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc. (In re Aspeon Secs. Litig.), No. 04-55651,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: General allegations that defendants engaged in audit obstruction, that there were GAAP violations, that defendants chose not to follow suggestions to change their accounting system, and that defendants actively managed the affairs of a corporation were insufficient to plead scienter for claims under 15 U.S.C.S. § 78j and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).
|
|||||
| First Ave. West Bldg., LLC v. James (In re Onecast Media), No. 04-35324,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bankruptcy court erred by denying Chapter 7 Trustee's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration; creditor waived its objection to timing of that motion, and Trustee's interest in funds creditor drew under letter of credit after Trustee rejected lease under 11 U.S.C.S. § 365 was property of estate and within bankruptcy court's jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Guzman-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, No. 04-71657, No. 04-75325,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a very brief order, without stating its analysis, the court reversed a finding that an alien was ineligible for penalty-fee adjustment of status under Immigration and Nationality Act § 245(i). However, denial of the alien's motion to reopen, construed as a motion for reconsideration, which was untimely, was proper.
|
|||||
| Israyelyan v. Gonzales, No. 03-73810,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was entitled to asylum. Beatings suffered by alien and his family constituted persecution, and alien credibly testified that the beatings were based on his mixed ethnicity. Thus, alien was entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he had a fear of future persecution in Armenia. U.S. offered no evidence of changed country conditions.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Schriro, No. 04-15559,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
