 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Summerlin v. M & H Valve Co., No. 05-11030,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed a grant of summary judgment to an employer on an employee's claims of failure-to-promote discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a), and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 as the employee failed to show that the reasons given by the employer were pretextual.
|
|||||
| United States v. Alvarez, No. 05-12870, Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a heroin distribution case, because defendant understood the facts to which he pled guilty, and those facts constituted "serious bodily injury" under 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 802(25) and sentencing guidelines, district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea or err in determining his sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Kahn, No. 04-15321, Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed the entry of a permanent injunction forbidding defendant, a certified public accountant, from performing certain tax advice-related acts. Defendant failed to file a sufficient answer to the government's complaint for a permanent injunction in that the answer did not comport with the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b).
|
|||||
| United States v. Reagan, No. 05-10952, Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 required court to hold evidentiary hearing before modification of term of supervised release, but refusal to terminate supervised release did not constitute modification of term of supervised release, district court was not required to hold evidentiary hearing before denying motion to terminate supervised release.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stevenson, No. 05-14504, Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant's original sentence was vacated in its entirety, district court erred by not granting him a hearing and affording him an opportunity to allocute at resentencing, Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 and 43. Thus, his sentence was vacated and remanded so that district court could hold hearing, and provide him an opportunity to address district court.
|
|||||
| United States v. Suarez, No. 04-15779,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress and allowed government to mention defendant's pre-Miranda reaction to customs agent's statement because agent's statement regarding why he was putting defendant under arrest was not the functional equivalent of an interrogation. Statement merely gave defendant the basis for his arrest.
|
|||||
| United States v. Young, No. 04-16705,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in denying defendant's motion to compel the government to disclose the identity of a confidential informant because it was unclear to what extent the informant participated in incidents charged in indictment and whether informant's testimony would significantly aid defendant in establishing his misidentification defense.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
