 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cruz v. Aramark Servs., No. 06-50035 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements made to EEOC by witnesses interviewed during investigation of employee's discrimination charges were not admissible as summary judgment evidence because the statements were unsworn, including letter to which witness did not respond, although letter stated that if it were not signed and returned, its contents would be presumed to be true.
|
|||||
| Doran v. Yoho, No. 06-50389 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in denying motion for new trial after jury found that appellant was 75% responsible under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 33.003, despite design defect in trigger; there was ample evidence of appellant's failure to practice gun safety to support verdict that appellant's negligence proximately caused his injury.
|
|||||
| Fierros v. Tex. Dep't of Health, No. 05-50460 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a Title VII case, a district court's denial of an employee's motion for attorney's fees because the judgment that she obtained was less than the employer's pre-judgment settlement offer was affirmed as the employee did not adequately preserve any error about the district court's limitation of trial testimony regarding retaliatory actions.
|
|||||
| Holly v. Metro. Transit Auth., No. 05-20671 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's grant of a transit authority's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss was affirmed because, when faced with the motion to dismiss, the individual did not respond to the motion or attempt to correct the improper service by complying with Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.102(c).
|
|||||
| Houk v. Peoploungers Inc., No. 06-60494 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment for employer in employee's ADEA suit where employer discharged employee based on belief that he left work without permission, employee was fired by same manager who hired him two years earlier at age 46, and younger employees who received less severe discipline did not have history of infractions.
|
|||||
| Langley v. Barnhart, No. 06-10819 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although ALJ's finding that Social Security disability benefits and SSI claimant retained residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work was partially based on determination that claimant was not credible, the determination was supported by objective medical evidence, and claimant's alleged limitations were not wholly supported by the same.
|
|||||
| United States v. Haire, No. 05-61070 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for violating 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1) was affirmed since, as part of his guilty plea, defendant admitted that he possessed a firearm and that he had been previously convicted of three burglary offenses committed on separate occasions; the Armed Career Criminal Act was correctly applied.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ortiz, No. 05-10574,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At defendant's trial for violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 846, district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence from defendant's cellular phone provider to establish defendant's location on certain dates; although U.S. disregarded deadline for exchanging exhibits, there was no evidence of bad faith nor was defendant surprised or prejudiced.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pecina, No. 05-41737 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, January 11, 2007, Filed
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. |
