 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barrera v. Worldwide Flight Servs., No. 06-20539 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if employee established prima facie case of Title VII retaliation, employer stated legitimate nonretaliatory reason for employee's termination, which was that he engaged in racially harassing behavior, in violation of employer's policies and the terms of earlier arbitration agreement that resulted from a prior incident of racial harassment.
|
|||||
| H & A Land Corp v. City of Kennedale, No. 05-11474, Consolidated with 06-10304,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of summary judgment to the off-site store was reversed and the case was remanded for findings as to whether the ordinances left open sufficient alternative channels of communication; the City offered evidence that purported to show a connection between purely off-site businesses, or "bookstores," and harmful secondary effects.
|
|||||
| Montes v. Ransom, No. 05-11206 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because handcuffing too tightly, without more, did not amount to excessive force, and the arrestee did not reveal any injuries other than minor red marks and perhaps a small amount of swelling, his claims of excessive force and failure to provide medical care in the jail, were properly dismissed by summary judgment by the district court.
|
|||||
| Orduna v. Tex. Comm'n on Alcohol & Drug Abuse, m 06-20555 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's grant of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) motion to dismiss was affirmed because, even though the case was accidentally closed by the court clerk, an individual took no action for four and a half years to advance his case; to conduct discovery or file pleadings, he did not need the court to set a trial date, so he caused the delay.
|
|||||
| Pequeno v. Schmidt (In re Pequeno), No. 06-40910 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Salgado v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-20011 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sunshine Traders of El Paso, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., No. 05-51669 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court partially erred in granting summary judgment to store corporation in a breach of contract suit filed by jeans manufacturer. Manufacturer's "open account" claims were timely asserted under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.004(c). Statute of fraud defense applied to manufacturer's third claim. Its fourth claim was time-barred.
|
|||||
| United States v. De La Pena, No. 06-50450 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Hamilton, No. 06-30482 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court did not violate Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(A) and (B), 18 U.S.C.S. § 3552, and the Sixth Amendment because its was not required to provide defendant with the probation officer's sentencing recommendations and defendant had already been provided with the information in the PSR amendment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
