 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ashnurov v. United States AG, No. 06-12114 Non-Argument Calendar, No. 06-12115 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Decided , April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review was denied since the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen; the alien's evidence of changed country conditions in the Ukraine was substantially the same as the evidence presented to the immigration judge during the asylum hearing, and the discrimination alleged did not rise to the level of harassment.
|
|||||
| Chayegan v. L'Oreal, S.A., No. 05-15691,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Decided , April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an employment discrimination case, the judgment of the district court was affirmed because, inter alia, the jury's rejection of the employee's termination arguments necessarily meant that the jury rejected his argument that the employer discriminated against him and that the promotion offer was a sham designed to induce his resignation.
|
|||||
| Darwin v. Nicholson, No. 06-13990 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Decided , April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A federal employee's Rehabilitation Act suit was properly dismissed on summary judgment based in part on her deposition testimony in which she admitted that her deafness was alleviated by a hearing aid; the deposition was admissible because she waived objection to its contents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B), (4), by failing to seasonably object.
|
|||||
| Dixon v. Toole, No. 06-13612 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Decided , April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a § 1983 case, a district court's entry of summary judgment was affirmed because a pro se state inmate's Eighth Amendment excessive force and unsafe confinement conditions claims failed since, inter alia, his claim for monetary damages failed under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e as there were only a de minimis injury.
|
|||||
| Folan v. McDonough, No. 05-13675 Non-Argument Calendar, No. 06-14391 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Decided , April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's dismissal of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition as untimely was affirmed because a pro se state inmate's second untimely Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion was not properly filed and did not toll the limitations period, and the inmate's law of the case doctrine and stare decisis arguments both failed.
|
|||||
| Kennedy v. United States AG, No. 06-14750 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Decided , April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien's petition for review was denied because her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not provide a basis for equitably tolling the 180-day limitations period for filing a motion to reopen an in absentia removal proceeding based on exceptional circumstances as defined in 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(e)(1).
|
|||||
| Lloyd Noland Found., Inc. v. Tenet Health Care Corp., No. 04-16534, 2:01-cv-1904-KOB,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In litigation over the meaning of an indemnity clause, a district court's certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) of an immediate appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of third-party defendants did not suffice to confer appellate jurisdiction; a final order was lacking because a common law indemnification claim had not been resolved.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Morris Communs. Co. LLC, No. 06-11069 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Decided , April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied appellant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion; appellant was trying to reargue merits of his claim and thereby circumvent 30-day time frame for appealing. District court had jurisdiction to sanction appellant after judgment was entered for appellee where appellant ignored warnings not to contact district court directly.
|
|||||
| SEC v. Merchant Capital, LLC, No. 06-10353,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Decided , April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Registered limited liability partnership interests were investment contracts under 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 77b(a)(1), 78c(a)(10), because partners had no real ability to remove the managing general partner firm and were completely inexperienced in the industry; a contrary finding against the SEC and in favor of the firm and its principals was reversed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
