 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bell v. Capital Veneer Works, No. 06-12253 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's Title VII and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 race and sex discrimination claims failed; comparators cited by employee in her attempt to establish prima facie case were not similarly situated, as the comparators had been assigned to work at two plants that employer was not closing, whereas employee had been assigned to work at plant that was closing.
|
|||||
| Crosby v. Mobile County Pers. Bd., No. 05-17039,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers one and two raised genuine issues of material fact as to their 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-3(a) claims where they alleged that sheriff transferred them to less desirable positions after officer one testified as to sheriff's use of racially derogatory language in another suit and officer two filed internal complaints about the sheriff's language.
|
|||||
| Grimes v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., No. 06-14363 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 denial of class certification to timeshare purchasers was affirmed because conflict existed among the named appellants and fellow class members and neither subclassing nor redefining the class would cure the actual and potential conflicts.
|
|||||
| Holloman v. Jacksonville Hous. Auth., No. 06-10108 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a tenant responded to evidence of his disruptive behavior, including two written warnings, by repeatedly asserting the housing authority's allegations were lies, and his "affidavit" and "declaration" were not properly sworn to as required by 28 U.S.C.S. § 1746, summary judgment to the authority on ADA and Fair Housing Act claims was upheld.
|
|||||
| Hunt v. Gonzales, No. 06-10375 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applicant's 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-16 race discrimination claim failed; DEA proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring the applicant, including questionable background check results, and the applicant failed to show that DEA's reasons were pretext for discrimination where he merely disagreed with the wisdom of the DEA's reasons.
|
|||||
| Redeker-Barry v. United States, No. 06-13925 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's dismissal of a pro se taxpayer's case following the IRS's denial of a collective due process hearing after the IRS's determination of the income tax owed was affirmed because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; the U.S. Tax Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the taxpayer's petition.
|
|||||
| United States v. Douglas, No. 06-12770 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's revocation of defendant's supervised release was affirmed since, in the absence of contrary evidence, the electronic judgment relied on by the district court, which was from the district court's electronic filing system, was sufficiently reliable to show that defendant violated a mandatory condition of his supervised release.
|
|||||
| United States v. Evans, No. 06-10907,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for violating 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1591(a)(1) and 2422(b) were affirmed because the stipulated facts were sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional interstate-commerce elements of the offenses; defendant's as applied constitutional challenges to the statutes failed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hassoun, No. 06-15845,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A conspiracy to murder charge under 18 U.S.C.S. § 956(a)(1) against defendants accused of participating in a support cell to promote violent Islamic jihad was erroneously dismissed on double jeopardy grounds; under the Blockburger test, it required proof of different elements than charges for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 371 and 18 U.S.C.S. § 2339A.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jackson, No. 06-11651 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was more likely that a prosecutor's remarks on defendant's ability to present an innocent explanation concerned a failure to counter evidence, not as a comment on a failure to testify, and defendant did not explain how, but for the remarks, the outcome of the trial would have been different, a Fifth Amendment claim on appeal was denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
