 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. States Ins. Co. v. Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, No. 04-51223,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The decision of the district court was affirmed because the district court appropriately resolved the viable issues on remand, regarding the potential liability under an insurance policy and the reasonableness of the settlement.
|
|||||
| IBEW v. Miss. Power & Light Co, No. 04-60975,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of two unions and its members in suit alleging that utility company's requirement that applicants attain score of 180 on test had disparate impact on African-Americans, in violation of 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2(k)(1), was reversed; unions and members failed to sustain burden of showing that acceptable alternative practices existed.
|
|||||
| Milofsky v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 03-11087,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Simmonds v. Abbott, No. 04-51075 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's dismissal of a pro se inmate's challenge to Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 498.0045 for lack of jurisdiction because the inmate lacked standing was affirmed because the inmate failed to show the threatened injury had a high degree of immediacy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Abrego-Villarreal, No. 05-40268 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Alvarado-De Hoyos, No. 04-41578 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Deffebo, No. 05-40419 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence for controlled substance and firearm offenses were affirmed because he was not entitled to Franks relief, the district court did not error in enhancing his sentence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C) and (c)(10), and the district court did not commit a Booker error.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gainer, No. 04-41695 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circumstantial evidence supported jury's conclusion that defendant was aware of concealed marijuana, 21 U.S.C.S. § 841. Evidence included defendant's dubious explanation for almost 4000-mile round trip from Peoria, Illinois, to Guadalajara, Mexico, over few days, and substantial and obvious alterations made to van in order to accommodate marijuana.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, No. 04-41532 Summary Calendar,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was affirmed, but his sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing since, under the harmless error standard of review, the record provided no indication, and the government had not shown, that the district court would not have sentenced defendant differently under an advisory USSG system.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
