 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abele v. Tolbert, No. 05-14945 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that property owner who claimed that government officials demolished his property without giving him notice or a hearing before that action occurred stated a valid claim alleging violation of his constitutional rights, and it reversed district court's judgment dismissing that claim and remanded case for further proceedings.
|
|||||
| Heffner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., No. 04-15477,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) of claims under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B), (3), was an abuse of discretion, because, in order to prevail, each ERISA plan participant had to prove reliance on the summary plan description, thereby making final injunctive or declaratory relief inappropriate for the class as a whole.
|
|||||
| Highland Props. v. Lee County Utils. Auth., No. 05-15802 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Utilities authority did not violate Equal Protection Clause by terminating, after condemnation, property owners' contract with private utility company and changing rates; though authority did not terminate another subdivision's contract with its company because contract provided that terms had to be honored, owners' contract was terminable at will.
|
|||||
| Rainey v. Sec'y for the Dep't of Corr., No. 04-13282,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's habeas petition was time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 at 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1) because the limitations period on his petition ran from the date his original judgment of conviction became final, and he was not entitled to equitable tolling.
|
|||||
| United States v. Arteaga-Gomez, No. 04-16704 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not raise a Booker claim in the district court, the instant court reviewed his claim for plain error only. Because defendant did not show that the district court would have sentenced him differently had it applied the guidelines as advisory, defendant failed to satisfy the third-prong of plain error review.
|
|||||
| United States v. Davis, No. 05-12944 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence for violating 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1) were affirmed because the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress, § 922(g) was not unconstitutional on its face or as applied to defendant, and the district court did not err in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
|
|||||
| United States v. Harris, No. 05-14709 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed because a statement in the affidavit that a controlled drug purchase had taken place was not deliberately false or a statement made in reckless disregard of the truth, and circumstances did not prevent application of the Leon good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
|
|||||
| United States v. King, No. 05-12607 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 545 and 2320(a) was affirmed because she waived her right to complain on appeal about aggravating factors in the indictment, and the district court did not err in admitting evidence of her previous conviction, supervised release status, and financial difficulties.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sosa, No. 05-14188 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
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. |
