 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hugh Johnson Enters. v. City of Winter Park, No. 06-15817 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 9, 2007, Decided , April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City had taken no concrete or cognizable action to suspend or revoke adult-entertainment club's license; because it had suffered no action to suspend or revoke its license whatsoever from city through adult entertainment ordinance, club's challenge to constitutionality of code was premature and unripe for adjudication.
|
|||||
| Kalmanson v. Nofziger (In re Nofziger), No. 06-13418 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 9, 2007, Decided , April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: That part of a creditor's appeal as to the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying a rehearing was dismissed because the appellate court lacked jurisdiction, and the remainder of the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying two motions by the creditor was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Moody v. Messer, No. 06-14897 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 9, 2007, Decided , April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case alleging 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 claims for conspiracy to violate a car passenger's constitutional rights and for malicious prosecution, a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of two police officers was affirmed since, inter alia, the passenger offered only his speculation as evidence of a conspiracy.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. v. Fortune Constr. Co., No. 06-14614 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 9, 2007, Decided , April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Previous opinion of instant court did not hold that defendant general contractor had asserted affirmative claim against plaintiff surety for liquidated damages owed by other party to subcontract with general contractor; district court was free to conclude that general contractor had never asserted affirmative claim against surety for delay damages.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ramos, No. 06-13978 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 9, 2007, Decided , April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An obstruction of justice enhancement was properly assessed under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 after defendant's drug conviction because there was testimony that defendant had no difficulty understanding the English language during questioning and factual findings showed that defendant offered false testimony at trial.
|
|||||
| United States v. Saulsby, No. 06-15264 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 9, 2007, Decided , April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Wallace v. Hamrick, No. 06-14008 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 9, 2007, Decided , April 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner's Due Process Clause claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 was improperly dismissed because there were allegations that he was placed in administrative segregation for 28 days and there were inadequate facts to determine if the confinement conditions were atypical and a significant hardship as compared to confinement conditions of fellow inmates.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
