 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Lawrenceville v. Ricoh Elecs., Inc., No. 05-11691,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manufacturer was properly granted Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) summary judgment in a city's suit to recover back payments for natural gas. The city was not entitled to reform the account as there was no evidence that reasonable diligence would not have prevented a billing error or that fraud or inequitable conduct by the manufacturer caused the error.
|
|||||
| Montero v. Potter, No. 05-10132, Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) motion in a Title VII was vacated and remanded because, inter alia, the employee did not use the motion as a substitute for appeal, the motion was brought within a reasonable, and the district court did not explain why a hurricane striking the area was not a basis for excusable neglect.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ameritrade Terminals, Inc., No. 05-10262,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided , March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In civil penalty action seeking forfeiture of a maritime bond, district court erred in granting summary judgment against United States (US) on res judicata grounds; settlement agreement reached with shipping agent relating to expenses incurred as a result of vessel's seizure did not act as a bar to US's subsequent claim to enforce civil penalties.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 05-12980 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided , March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 96-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute at least 1 gram of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841, was reasonable where it was less than half of the 20-year statutory maximum sentence, § 841(b)(1)(C), and well below the guidelines range of 151 to 188 months.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pirchesky, No. 05-12674 Oral Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided , March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for, inter alia, conspiracy to defraud the United States, money laundering, false claims and statements, and the filing of false tax returns were affirmed. As ample evidence supported the jury's verdicts, the district court correctly denied defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal on the substantive offenses.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vereen, No. 05-12851 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided , March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was subject to 10-year mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(1)(B) because judgments of convictions submitted with an information filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C.S. § 851 showed that defendant had one prior felony conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and two prior felony convictions of possession of cocaine.
|
|||||
| Allen v. Barnhart, No. 05-15465 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Decided , April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's order affirming the denial of the claimant's application for Social Security disability insurance benefits was affirmed because the ALJ did not improperly rely on the testimony of a vocational expert, and the claimant could not establish that new evidence related to the period on or before the decision of the ALJ.
|
|||||
| Espy v. Massac, No. 04-16416,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Decided , April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate, who was convicted of armed robbery and firearm possession, was properly denied 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 relief. Admission of res gestae hearsay statements did not violate his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights as a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this matter was a new rule of law that was not applicable retroactively to cases on collateral review.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez Solis, No. 04-15956 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Decided , April 3, 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. |
