 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Sigal v. Nash-Finch Co., No. 04-16541,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employees' discrimination suit was dismissed on summary judgment because they had signed agreements with the employer barring them from taking further legal action if the EEOC issued a "no cause" finding regarding their charges of violations of the ADA, ADEA, and Title VII, and EEOC's form indicated it found no violations of those statutes.
|
|||||
| Tinoco-Jaimes v. United States, No. 05-14514 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the record did not include an order from the district court either granting or denying a prisoner a certificate of appealability following the denial of the prisoner's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 claims, a remand was necessary. Dismissal of prisoner's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 claim was proper.
|
|||||
| United States v. De Armas, No. 05-11896 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions and 135-month sentence for controlled substance violations were affirmed because the district court was not required to discuss each of the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, and the sentence and application of the Booker decision did not violate ex post facto and due process principles.
|
|||||
| United States v. De La Cruz Querido, No. 05-13301 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed where, while defendant asserted that the district court should have granted him a minor role adjustment, under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2, the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's role was no less critical than the roles of the other participants.
|
|||||
| Bailey v. Monaco Coach Corp., No. 04-16575 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment to manufacturer in a breach of warranty action that was brought under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act was affirmed where consumer could have shown no breach of express warranty absent sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue that manufacturer failed to repair a covered defect that was brought appropriately to its attention.
|
|||||
| Burkett v. Beaulieu of Am., Inc., No. 05-15126 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in granting summary judgment to employer on employee's FMLA claim where employer terminated employee pursuant to its policy and 29 C.F.R. § 825.311(c) because employer's policy was to not allow employees to return to work without providing a fitness-for-duty certificate, and employee failed to comply with this policy.
|
|||||
| Means v. Vasquez, No. 05-15230 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's sua sponte dismissal of a pro se federal inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 petition was affirmed because even if the inmate could establish that she was actually innocent of the offenses of conviction, she failed to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255's savings clause and to open the portal to a § 2241 proceeding.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gillespie, No. 04-12649 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following remand from the United States Supreme Court, the appellate court's opinion was reinstated, and defendant's conviction and sentence for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 228(a)(3) was affirmed because, under the plain error standard of review, defendant had not shown a reasonable probability of a lower sentence under the post-Booker advisory USSG.
|
|||||
| United States v. Steele, No. 05-11929 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not provide complete information regarding to his father's or his own involvement in a conspiracy. Thus, the government's claim that it refused to file a substantial assistance motion under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(e) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1, based on defendant's failure to provide complete information was supported.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
