 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 06-11683 Non-Argument Calendar (SEALED CASE),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided , April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A contemnor was properly held in contempt for refusing to comply with an order to perform a handwriting exemplar in a grand jury investigation because the exemplar, which was an identifying physical characteristic, did not violate the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination privilege and he did not challenge the exemplar's content.
|
|||||
| Mahgoub v. Miami Dade Cmty. College, No. 05-11520 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided , April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer was properly granted summary judgment on a Title VII hostile work environment claim because the four offensive utterances did not occur within 300 days of his EEOC filing and were not shown to have affected his job performance and, thus, the conditions of his employment.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Cullman County Comm'n, No. 05-13297,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided , April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a § 1983 case, a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a county commission, a sheriff, and jailer was affirmed because, while conditions at the county jail were deplorable, there was no violation of the inmate's constitutional rights since the commission, sheriff, and jailer were not deliberately indifferent to the risk.
|
|||||
| Scheerer v. United States AG, Nos. 04-16231 & 05-11303,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided , April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the intractable conflict between 8 U.S.C.S. § 1255, which contemplated that parolees were eligible for adjustment of status, and 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8), which excluded the same class from eligibility for adjustment of status, 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8) was not based on a permissible construction of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1255, and thus was invalid.
|
|||||
| Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. GMC, No. 05-13401,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although district court did not abuse its discretion in fining manufacturer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 for failing to produce certain documents in car dealership's suit alleging unlawful termination of satellite agreement, because district court did not explain why it imposed $ 700,000 fine, it could not be determined if fine violated due process.
|
|||||
| Shulman v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 04-16681 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided , April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insured neglected to raise his bad faith claim prior to settlement and dismissal of his initial lawsuit where the insurer did not dispute coverage, the insured's subsequent bad faith lawsuit relating to that claim was barred under the doctrine of res judicata.
|
|||||
| Singleton v. Ala. Democratic Party, No. 05-13045 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred issues relating to the removal of a judicial candidate's name from the election ballot because the issues either had already been, or could have been, raised in the state court; the candidate also failed to state a cause of action under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 based on federal preclearance.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ardilla-Tepetate, No. 05-12614 Non-Argument Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided , April 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court committed plain error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 when it allowed testimony that two co-defendants pleaded guilty and neither co-defendant testified at trial or was subject to cross-examination. However, defendants could not establish that the error affected their substantial rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bertucci, No. 04-12918,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 13, 2006, Decided
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. |
