 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hendrix v. Snow, No. 05-11583 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided , February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment to the United States, an employer, and coworkers on a federal employee's claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Whistleblower Protection Act, and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1985(1) as she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies or else failed to present a prima facie cause of action.
|
|||||
| Lippert v. Cmty. Bank, Inc., No. 04-16535,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided , February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While a bank employee's internal reports to an audit committee and board, and his meetings with the FDIC at the bank preparatory to an upcoming bank examination, could allow a jury to find the bank knew of protected disclosures to the FDIC, the internal reports were not protected disclosures under the plain language of 12 U.S.C.S. § 1831j(a)(1).
|
|||||
| United States v. McKinnies, No. 05-12715 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided , February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was affirmed since the district court did not err in admitting a co-conspirator's statement to a non-co-conspirator. The present court declined defendant's request to find that 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841 and 960 were unconstitutional after the Apprendi decision since binding precedent had found that the statutes were constitutional.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pickering, No. 03-14279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided , February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the defendant was identified as the person who gave an airline traveler cocaine to bring into the U.S. and witnesses testified about the money that the defendant came into after the crime was committed, including a bank deposit on the day of the crime, the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of conspiring to distribute cocaine.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pratt, No. 04-15168,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided , February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the search warrant for defendant's home was lost after its execution and was missing at the suppression hearing, the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit the use of other evidence, including the affidavit and testimony of the detective and issuing magistrate, to prove the warrant's existence and descriptive language.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tugman, No. 03-16404,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided , February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following remand from the United States Supreme Court, an appellate court reinstated its prior opinion and affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences because the appellate court was not required to consider the Booker issue on its merits, and defendant did not satisfy the requisites for plain-error relief.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 04-14350,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided , February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the district court failed to comply with 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(c)(1) by offering no reason for sentencing the 26 year-old defendant to a life sentence, remand was necessary for compliance with § 3553(c)(1).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
