 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Berry v. Coleman, No. 05-16046 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Decided , March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed former state employee's suit alleging that he was retaliated against, in violation of U.S. Const. amend. I, for stating that certain group was not prepared to take over operations of one state campus, as memorandum was prepared in response to request of supervisors, not for purposes of informing the public.
|
|||||
| Bigler v. United States AG, No. 05-10971,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed immigration judge's decision that alien was removable under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(1)(A); substantial evidence showed that alien knowingly abandoned his legal permanent resident status by signing abandonment form sometime during his seven year residency in Colombia, as well as reentered the U.S. without a valid immigrant visa.
|
|||||
| Borja v. Hines Nurseries, Inc., No. 05-16435 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Decided , March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an FLSA and Fla. Stat. § 440.205 retaliation case, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a nursery was affirmed because the former employee, as an agricultural worker, was exempt from the protections of the FLSA as to overtime, and the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
|
|||||
| Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, No. 05-14899 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Decided , March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer failed to establish prima facie case on her federal race discrimination claims, as officers she cited as being similarly situated had not committed nearly identical infractions. County did not violate Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a) by firing officer for marrying inmate, as officer was fired for fraternization not because of her marital status.
|
|||||
| Cobb v. TSI Telcoms. Servs., No. 05-13037,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Decided , March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's entry of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 judgment as a matter of law in favor of a former employer was affirmed because the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of the employee's statistician witness, and the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge.
|
|||||
| Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., No. 05-10850,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Decided , March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of employer against couple's ERISA claims was affirmed. Employer's decision to distribute husband's future payments in lump sum plainly complied with terms of the retirement plans. Couple did not present any affirmative evidence to show that lump sum payment was not fully equivalent in value to the future benefits payable.
|
|||||
| Ivory v. United States, No. 05-14028 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Decided , March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's denial of an inmate's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motions was affirmed because the motion under Rule 59(e) was time-barred, and Rule 41(g) was not the appropriate basis for a motion since the property was seized in civil forfeiture actions and not in a criminal proceeding.
|
|||||
| United States v. Artis, No. 05-15297 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Decided , March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to return of property that was seized from his home; under six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C.S. § 2401(a), district court lacked jurisdiction to grant equitable relief where defendant's motion for return of property was filed nine years after forfeiture and seven years after he made inquiry about property.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cogdell, No. 05-10004 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
