 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baxter v. Barnhart, No. 05-11074 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a supplemental security income to a claimant for benefits, under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1383(c)(3), was affirmed as an administrative law judge properly disregarded a determination of antisocial personality disorder by one psychologist, and properly disregarded a vocational expert's responses to hypothetical questions by the claimant's counsel.
|
|||||
| Cummings v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 05-12206 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment denying benefits to a supplemental security income claimant was affirmed because substantial evidence supported a determination by an administrative law judge (ALJ) decision that the claimant was not disabled, and remand was not required as proposed supplemental evidence was not new, noncumulative, and material to the ALJ's decision.
|
|||||
| Enron Corp. v. New Power Co. (In re New Power Co.), No. 04-15492,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because modifications made were not material and adverse, and therefore the bankruptcy court could properly deem plaintiff's vote in favor of a prior plan to be a vote in favor of the modified plan, and because the interim distribution provision did not violate the equal treatment provision, 11 U.S.C.S. § 1123(a)(4), the modified plan was upheld.
|
|||||
| Fishbone v. Sec'y for the Dep't of Corr., No. 04-16035 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Assuming arguendo that defense counsel interfered with an inmate's right to testify at his murder trial and provided ineffective assistance in so doing, defendant was not prejudiced because the jury would have been unlikely to find his testimony credible, since it would have conflicted with that of two medical experts.
|
|||||
| Jones v. United Space Alliance, No. 05-13001 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hostile work environment claim failed where record indicated none of alleged incidents occurred on repeated basis, none were physically threatening, and none interfered with work performance. Racial discrimination claim failed, as employee's allegations he was discharged to avoid raise did not demonstrate racial or religious discrimination.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Maldonado, No. 05-14813 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's dismissal of a pro se federal inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed because the inmate's claim that an institution he was charged with robbing did not meet the definition of a bank under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2113(f) did not fit within 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255's savings clause.
|
|||||
| United States v. Esperance, No. 05-13529 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a sentence in a drug case was remanded for resentencing, the law-of-the-case doctrine precluded review of arguments not raised prior to the remand, except those based on a reasonableness argument under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), since new law had been decided regarding the discretionary application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mitchell, No. 04-14450,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a reasonable jury could have found that Medicare claims were fraudulent because there was insufficient supervision of technicians by a physician, a motion for a judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 was improperly granted. However, since this conspiracy theory was supported only by a tenuous inference, a new trial was appropriate.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mostellar, No. 05-12866 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dourt did not abuse its discretion by admitting deputy sheriff's testimony regarding defendant's prior conviction because testimony was not hearsay because the writing on the check was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and the statements were properly admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) because defendant was a party-opponent.
|
|||||
| United States v. Skyles, No. 05-13664 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 3, 2006, Decided , February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Delegating to probation office discretion to require defendant to undergo drug or alcohol treatment and/or to require mental health counseling and treatment was a delegation of a judicial function, which violated U.S. Const. art. III. Error was plain error, and relief was warranted because delegating treatment decision affected substantial rights.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
