|
| |
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.
|
| |
Federal Courts -
11th Circuit Court of Appeals - March 21, 2007
|
| |
Action Marine, Inc. v. Cont'l Carbon, Inc., No. 06-11311,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided , March 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A jury properly found that a corporation that manufactured carbon black and permitted its smokestacks to spew an oily substance onto adjacent properties over a course of years with notice but without effectively remedying the problem evinced a specific intent to cause harm, overcoming the punitive damage cap in O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(f), (g) (2000).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
United States v. Delgado-Mina, No. 06-11902 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided , March 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant's 135-month sentence for violating 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 1903(a), (g), and (j) (current versions at 46 U.S.C.S. §§ 70503(a) and 70506) and 21 U.S.C.S. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) was affirmed because his sentence was reasonable, and he waived his challenge to the denial of a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2. mitigating-role reduction.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Williams v. Florida, No. 06-13393 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided , March 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: State prisoner's habeas petition was properly barred by the one year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(2) because petition did not challenge resentencing and only challenged original conviction so that time ran from date of original judgment, not from time of affirmance of resentencing, and prisoner showed no basis for equitable tolling.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|