 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bridges v. Dep't of Md. State Police, No. 05-1078, No. 05-1691,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals affirmed district court's order denying a motion filed by people who sought to join a lawsuit filed by an NAACP branch and 18 individuals, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, which claimed that Maryland State Police officers engaged in racial profiling when they stopped motorists, because would-be plaintiffs' claims were time-barred.
|
|||||
| Combs-Burge v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-1366,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Secretary of Defense was entitled to summary judgment as to an employee's racially hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation claims under Title VII because, inter alia, she did not show that the alleged acts of mistreatment were based on her race rather than her poor job performance and she failed to show pretext.
|
|||||
| Greene v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc., No. 05-1714,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was entitled to summary judgment on employee's Title VII retaliation claim where employee could not have shown that he engaged in protected activity because, based on a handful of observations of lewd magazines and inappropriate jokes or drawings, employee did not have an objectively reasonable belief that employer's actions were unlawful.
|
|||||
| Q Int'l Courier, Inc. v. Smoak, No. 05-1150,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred by applying the federal law of res judicata rather than the Virginia law of res judicata in deciding defendant's motion to dismiss because the court was required to apply the law of the state where the federal district court sat in the first action (Virginia) to determine whether the plaintiff's claims should be precluded.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rivera-Cruz, No. 05-4950,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not err in conducting a sentencing hearing without an interpreter present, pursuant to the Court Interpreter's Act because the record, including defendant's past assurances, revealed that he understood and spoke English and that his comprehension of the proceedings was not inhibited by any language problem.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wright, No. 04-4462,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions and sentence were affirmed where an appellate court's review of the record convinced it that the district court did not plainly err in concluding that defendant qualified as an armed career criminal and that his sentence did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
