 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Faulkner v. Woods Transp., Inc., No. 05-14892 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Decided , April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court properly granted an employer judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) since, in support of his Title VII retaliation claim, the employee failed to produce legally sufficient evidence at trial from which a reasonable jury could find that the employer had at least 15 employees during the statutory time period.
|
|||||
| Jewson v. Thomas, No. 05-14342 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Decided , April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State prisoner abandoned § 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 claim, which asserted that district court erred by failing to address claim that state court lost jurisdiction to rule on post-conviction evidentiary hearing after initial judge recused himself, because brief only addressed merits of claim and not whether district court erred by not addressing claim.
|
|||||
| Schultz v. Ashcroft, Nos. 05-12282 and 05-13807 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Decided , April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Two state employees were entitled to qualified immunity in attorney's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 suit because their seizure of computer tape and accessing of server shared by law firm and corporations under investigation fell within scope of injunction, corporations and firm shared computer server, and because attorney was affiliated with corporations.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lopez Ramirez, No. 04-16518,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Decided , April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Moore, No. 05-15329 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Decided , April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the evidence that defendant had possessed a firearm as a convicted felon under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) because instead of constituting improper character evidence, the evidence was relevant as evidence of defendant's knowledge and intent.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stumpner, No. 05-15411 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Decided , April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court upheld defendant's 292-month sentence for violations of 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 963, 846, 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) and (2). District court stated that it considered the factors in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) and the sentencing range calculated under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, and it specifically considered defendant's advanced age.
|
|||||
| Wang v. United States AG, No. 05-15217 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 5, 2006, Decided , April 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported immigration judge's determination that alien was not entitled to relief under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158, 1231 because she lacked credibility; alien's stories concerning why she left China were inconsistent, and alien failed to mention alleged forced abortion when she entered U.S. and in subsequent immigration interview.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
