 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blaske v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 05-10616,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where genuine issues of fact existed as to whether the insured's claim notice was given as soon as reasonably possibly, what job duties the insured had to his employer, and whether the insured's medical condition rendered him totally disabled, as defined in the terms of the policies, court vacated grant of summary judgment in insurer's favor.
|
|||||
| Fisher v. Office of the State Atty. 13th Judicial Circuit Fla., No. 05-11115 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed a former inmate's civil rights action against the State of Florida and the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) as the court properly extended under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) the time for the State and the DOC to join in a previously filed motion to dismiss and granted the motion on statute of limitations grounds.
|
|||||
| Gates v. Donald, No. 05-12608 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A jury verdict in favor of prison officials on a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action was affirmed because there was no reversible error, plain or otherwise, in the jury instructions where an inmate's brief did not specify how the instructions were misleading and failed to identify any specific jury instruction that was allegedly improper.
|
|||||
| United States v. Baez-Berrios, No. 05-12929 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 46 months sentence for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a), (b)(2) was not unreasonable. The district court adequately and properly considered the factors under 18 U.S.C.S. § 355(a) and the advisory Guidelines range, and the sentence was at the low end of the Guidelines range and significantly lower than the statutory maximum of 20 years.
|
|||||
| United States v. Griffin, No. 03-16364,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a state court vacated defendant's three prior burglary convictions, former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) was not available as a means for defendant to challenge his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act because when he was sentenced for being a felon in possession of a firearm he had at least three prior convictions for violent felonies.
|
|||||
| United States v. Love, No. 05-14197 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the district court imposed a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range and almost one-third the length of the 15-year statutory maximum sentence, and it considered the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of defendant, the imposed sentence of 70-months' imprisonment was appropriate.
|
|||||
| United States v. Umole, No. 05-10124 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution for credit card fraud, a district court did not err in refusing to grant defendant a Franks hearing because defendant failed to show that the affidavit supporting the search warrant would not have established probable cause without a misrepresentation regarding the affiant's authority to investigate violations of state law.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
