 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fuentes v. Barnhart, No. 04-51029 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's judgment was affirmed, where it affirmed Social Security Commissioner's determination that claimant was not disabled. ALJ correctly applied proper legal standards in evaluating medical evidence; in assessing credibility with regard to alleged disability, including reports of pain; and in determining residual functional capacity.
|
|||||
| Garson v. Barnhart, No. 05-10729 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed district court's decision affirming denial of claimant's request for Social Security disability benefits; even with her impairments, claimant could perform limited range of light work, and if she wished to have Social Security Administration consider ailments she developed after ALJ's decision, she had to file new claim for benefits.
|
|||||
| Haider v. Gonzales, 04-61016 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 8 U.S.C.S. § 1255(i) allowed an alien whose visa petition had been approved to apply for adjustment of status. Petitioner did not have such an immigrant visa immediately available to him at the time his application was filed. Thus, the IJ properly concluded that his pending I-140 petition did not confer upon him lawful status. He was removable.
|
|||||
| Higginbotham v. Barnhart, No. 05-10740 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal by a claimant for Supplemental Social Security Income benefits was denied because the decision to deny the claimant's application for benefits was supported by substantial evidence in the record. A treating physician's conclusory statement that the claimant was disabled did not overcome the substantial evidence supporting the decision.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Aramco Servs. Co., 04-20557 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed applicant's ADEA case against recruiter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; recruiter was U.S. company that was wholly controlled by Saudi Arabian oil company, and under 29 U.S.C.S. § 623(h)(2), ADEA did not apply when foreign corporation controlled U.S. corporation and job was with the foreign parent abroad.
|
|||||
| Lal Tlan Thanga v. Gonzales, No. 04-61058 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of denial of relief under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1158 and 1231 was denied; immigration judge's finding that alien was not credible was supported by substantial evidence due to implausibility of alien's story about how he entered U.S., fact that he submitted no documentary evidence, and fact that he was sole witness at hearing.
|
|||||
| Raheemani v. Ashcroft, No. 04-60544 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(1) did not strip a court of jurisdiction to review the denial of an alien's motion to reopen immigration proceedings for adjustment of status because the immigration judge did not rule on merits of motion. Denial of motion was not abuse of discretion because granting of alien's I-140 visa petition was highly problematic.
|
|||||
| Restrepo v. Winfrey, No. 04-51141 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: REAL ID Act applied retroactively to divest a district court of jurisdiction over an alien's habeas petition because the BIA's removal order was issued before the May 11, 2005, enactment of § 106(b) of the Act; therefore, a reviewing court lacked jurisdiction to consider the alien's appeal under the Act.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. ConAgra Grocery Prods. Co., No. 04-11473,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a worker was not hired because the employer's doctor believed he was not controlling his diabetes, it was a "regarded as" Texas Commission on Human Rights Act case which did not require him to exercise some level of control over his impairment; a grant of summary judgment to the employer was reversed and judgment entered for the worker.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
