 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Henderson v. George Wash. Univ., No. 05-7054,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice case, where evidence excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403 went to the heart of plaintiff's case and appeared crucial to the outcome, where defendants used the evidence as a shield to enhance their own case, and any prejudice to defendants appeared minimal, the district court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence.
|
|||||
| Int'l Transp. Serv. v. NLRB, No. 05-1063, Consolidated with 05-1126,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an employee who picketed for recognition of a union as her personal bargaining representative did not engage in protected activity, her employer did not unlawfully discharge her, and thus, the court granted the employer's petition for review from the NLRB's order finding it violated 29 U.S.C.S. § 158(a)(3), (1), of the NLRA.
|
|||||
| Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, No. 05-5256,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: FDA was required to provide more information in Vaughn indexes to explain technical descriptions of documents withheld under 5 U.S.C.S. § 552(b)(4) regarding approval of mifepristone and to provide dates or explanations where dates could not be found to show if documents were in fact pre-decisional and deliberative to be exempt under § 552(b)(5).
|
|||||
| Sanders v. United States, No. 05-5264,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Thurston v. United States Gov't, No. 05-5427,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Baugham, No. 03-3157, Consolidated with, 03-3158,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Variance between the conspiracy alleged and the proof at trial constituted harmless error where the government's case rested on evidence that would have been admitted even if defendants had each been tried alone, and the government pointed to evidence that was in no way dependent on the fact that the five men were tried together.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, No. 04-3159,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: General intent was required for a conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1)(A), so that defendant's accidental discharge of a firearm during an armed robbery was insufficient to trigger a 10-year sentence under § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). There was no evidence that the discharge arose out of any act manifesting additional disregard of others' safety.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mejia, No. 02-3067 Consolidated with 03-3004,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court had jurisdiction over defendants, who were arrested in Panama, and evidence was sufficient to convict them of a cocaine importing conspiracy under 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 959, 960, and 963. Information was properly withheld from discovery under the Classified Information Procedures Act and Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1).
|
|||||
| United States v. Valencia-Rios, No. 03-3004,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 2, 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. |
