 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bardette v. United States AG, No. 05-13592 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied aliens' petition for review of decision denying relief under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158, 1231; aliens were unable to show that arrest, beatings, and robberies perpetrated against them in Haiti were motivated by their political affiliation, and aliens' fear of returning to Haiti was belied by fact that they made return trips after entering U.S.
|
|||||
| Boone v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-14567 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in granting summary judgment for DOD on former civilian employee's disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act because the employee was eligible for an accommodation in the form of a light-duty position, and a genuine question of fact existed as to the essential functions of the employee's job.
|
|||||
| Carter v. Bowman, No. 05-11536 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's grant of summary judgment to employer in employee's Title VII race discrimination suit was affirmed; although employee made out prima facie case of discrimination, he failed to show that employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharging him, which was his failure to take drug test after on-the-job injury, was pretext.
|
|||||
| Dearth v. Collins, No. 05-12039,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a company and its president in a Title VII sexual harassment case was affirmed because the president could not be held liable under Title VII and the Faragher-Ellerth defense barred the former employee's claims against the company.
|
|||||
| Higgins v. United States AG, No. 05-14639 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of BIA order denying asylum and withholding of removal was denied; finding of adverse credibility was supported by substantial evidence where alien's accounts of cousin's kidnapping and attack on alien were inconsistent, and threatening calls received by alien did not amount to persecution for purposes of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158.
|
|||||
| Seventh St. v. Baldwin County Planning & Zoning Comm'n, No. 04-15538,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a county commission and zoning commission was affirmed because the county commission had the authority to enact regulations for a flood prone area, and the zoning commission's reasons for it denial for a subdivision were not so vague and indefinite as to be no rule or standard at all.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Smith, No. 04-11280,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an inmate's second habeas petition was denied as untimely filed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1), the inmate was entitled to equitable tolling after the dismissal of his first petition because the district court erred in not vacating the dismissal of the first petition after the state conceded that the inmate had exhausted all of his claims.
|
|||||
| United States v. Atwell, No. 05-10064 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Amendment 599 was inapposite and did not support a reduction of defendant's sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 3582(c)(2), because his first sentence calculation that included scoring under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.4, the section addressed by Amendment 599, was trumped by the greater sentence for a career offender.
|
|||||
| United States v. Castaneda, No. 05-14518 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no error in the district court's use of the same prior conviction to increase both defendant's base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) and his criminal history category, defendant's 71-month sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1326(a)(2) and (b)(1) was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Harding, No. 05-13576 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Decided , March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err when it decided to enhance defendant's sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252(b)(2), based on his prior Florida convictions for lewd sexual battery because 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252(b)(2) used broad language, and reached any conviction under a state law related to abusive sexual conduct that involved a minor.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
