 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Commee v. Nucor Corp., No. 05-1089,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because landowner/general contractor did not retain control over method and manner of independent contractor's work on steel plant, and work had been found not to be inherently dangerous, independent contractor's employee, injured while constructing plant, could not hold landowner/general contractor liable for negligence under North Carolina law.
|
|||||
| Ingle v. Yelton, No. 05-1556,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in denying plaintiff's Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion because plaintiff presented compelling reasons to allow the requested discovery (the officers' account of the deadly force incident conflicted with the physical evidence), and whether tapes existed and what they showed were entirely within the knowledge of defendants.
|
|||||
| Lamar v. Johnson, No. 05-7372,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| P.R. Chunk, Inc. v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., No. 05-1090,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract suit regarding a technology transfer agreement, sellers were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 on the issue of minimum royalties, because the sellers did not move for JMOL prior to sending the case to the jury, and evidence supported the finding that the sellers breached a warranty.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bruton, No. 05-4333,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly enhanced and calculated defendant's guideline sentence for his role in the offense under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2005) where defendant was a supervisor because he hired an individual to help run the drug house. As defendant's sentence was within that guideline range, it was presumptively reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Grandos-Arredondo, No. 05-4190,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's drug conviction and sentence were affirmed; because defendant had no standing to challenge a third-party's consent to a search, the information gained from the search and seizure of the vehicle was properly admitted, and the district court properly used a prior conviction to enhance defendant's sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hanna, No. 05-4514,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Spivey, No. 04-4657,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded because defendant's base offense level was not properly determined, and an enhancement for being a leader or organizer in the conspiracy was improperly applied, as they were based on drug quantities and facts not alleged in the indictment, found by the jury, or admitted to by defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Thompson, No. 05-4080,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was vacated and remanded for further proceedings where treating the USSG as mandatory constituted error under Booker, and the error was not harmless, under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a), because the U.S. failed to demonstrate that the error in sentencing defendant under a mandatory USSG scheme did not affect his substantial rights.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
