 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Heslet v. Westar Energy, Inc., No. 05-3177,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action brought under the ADEA, the court agreed with the district court that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of presenting evidence from which a reasonable jury could have concluded that defendant's nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination, i.e., theft, was unworthy of belief and was instead a pretext for age discrimination.
|
|||||
| Platero v. Williams Field Servs. Co., No. 05-2006,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted an employer summary judgment based on evidence that similarly situated employees, whose retention was the basis for Title VII claims, outscored the employee on performance evaluations because it substantiated a legitimate justification for termination and the employee presented insufficient evidence of pretext.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dozier, No. 05-6259,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in failing to notify defendant of its intention to depart from advisory USSG based upon number of victim impact statements never received or reviewed by defense counsel, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32. Nothing in PSI indicated that district court might be considering victim impact statements as basis for upward departure.
|
|||||
| United States v. Slaughter, No. 05-3040,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for acquittal was properly denied because conviction for possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841 and 18 U.S.C.S. § 2 was supported by sufficient evidence that defendant gave inconsistent testimony about his short trip, drove a vehicle in which cellophane-wrapped heroin was hidden, and left fingerprints on the cellophane.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
