 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gresham v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., No. 05-2345,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's grant of summary judgment to employer was affirmed where Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law authorized an award of up to treble damages, plus attorney's fees and costs, if the failure to pay was not the result of a bona fide dispute, and parties agreed that the test for whether a dispute was bona fide was an objective one.
|
|||||
| Schwam v. XO Communs., Inc., No. 05-1060,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's grant of summary judgment to employer on employee's unjust enrichment claim was affirmed where employer's sales incentive plan (SIP) was not a contract of adhesion, was the compensation contract governing the dispute, and was not invalid for lack of mutuality. The SIP did not provide for the payment of post-termination commissions.
|
|||||
| Talbot v. Acme Paper & Supply Co., No. 05-2119,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Stitt, No. 05-10, No. 05-11,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the district court properly applied the Sullivan standard to the inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 claim that his counsel labored under conflict of interest during penalty phase by failing to request a court-appointed mitigation expert in order to protect his fee arrangement, grant of habeas corpus relief to the inmate was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stitt, No. 05-10, No. 05-11,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255, a federal circuit court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over an appeal of an order affirming a finding of guilt to drug, firearms, and capital murder offenses, but vacating a capital sentence since the order vacating the sentence and affirming the finding of guilt did not become final until resentencing had occurred.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
