 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boyd v. Crim. Div. of the United States DOJ, No. 05-5142, No. 04-5369,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of summary judgment to government agencies on appellant's request for information under FOIA was affirmed; FOIA Exemption 7(A) was properly invoked because the investigation at issue involved the ongoing collection of data and the withheld records related to potential criminal proceedings against individuals.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. EPA, No. 06-5386,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Howell v. DOJ, No. 06-5183,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Petties v. District of Columbia, No. 06-7074,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| SEC v. Wash. Inv. Network, No. 05-5433,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's findings that an investment network and one of its principals violated the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 80b-3(f), 80b-6(1), and 80b-6(2), were not clearly erroneous because the evidence supported that they permitted a barred individual to continue to assume control over the network and its finances.
|
|||||
| United States v. Quinn, No. 06-3058,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Opinion was amended to include that because of the admission of defendant's boss of material false statements during the boss's plea colloquy, which was not entered until after defendant's trial had concluded, defendant was unable to present this evidence of fabrication and recantation to the jury.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rattler, No. 05-3103,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, February 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied motion to suppress identification evidence in robbery prosecution because, even if identification procedures were suggestive, such identifications were sufficiently reliable to preclude substantial likelihood of misidentification; bank employees gave detailed and accurate descriptions before identification procedures.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
