 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Altadis USA, Inc. v. NPR, Inc., No. 05-14125 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided , January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a corporation's motion to amend it complaint was affirmed because an amendment to assert a claim under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3929.06(C)(1) would have been futile since an insurer had already paid insurance proceeds to its insured, and thus the corporation had no third-party claim against the insurer.
|
|||||
| Hillemann v. Univ. of Cent. Fla., No. 04-15153 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided , January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to a state university board of regents on a job applicant's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 623, claims because the claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment since the university was a state entity.
|
|||||
| Mohamed v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., No. 04-12834,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided , January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Springer, No. 05-12424 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided , January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Permitting expert testimony based in part on hearsay did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights in light of Crawford because, even excluding the testimonial hearsay evidence, the expert's opinion was based on books, CDs, and personal knowledge that did not appear to be testimonial evidence subject to the Crawford rule.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
