 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Begu v. Gonzales, No. 04-4056,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of asylum was affirmed because the alien did not furnish any corroboration from a family member, which could be produced in the form of affidavits or letters and insufficient detail along with discrepancies or inconsistencies in the alien's testimony constituted a basis for finding such testimony incredible.
|
|||||
| Farrell v. United States, No. 04-3553,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence supported defendant's convictions for conspiracy, bank robbery, and firearm possession under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2, 371, 2113(a), (d), 924(c); further, a taped car chase was properly admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 403, 404, eyewitness testimony was sufficiently reliable, and there was no Brady violation.
|
|||||
| Jones v. City of Allen Park, Case No. 04-2117,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on former police officer's claims under Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.361 et seq., and 42 U.S.C.S. 1983 because officer failed to establish that adverse employment actions taken against him had causal connection to his providing testimony in lawsuit against defendants.
|
|||||
| Linscott v. Rose, No. 04-3474,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Decided , January 3, 2006, Filed * * This decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on January 3, 2006. The court has now designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ohio prisoner's federal habeas petition was timely because statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d), began to run on date that resentencing judgment became final. Petition was properly denied because state trial court's consideration of pre-trial psychiatric evaluation, even if erroneous under U.S. Const. amend. V, did not influence sentence.
|
|||||
| Linscott v. Rose, No. 04-3474,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in denying prisoner's habeas petition because, even if use of psychiatric report at sentencing violated prisoner's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, trial court based sentencing decision on information other than psychiatric evaluation. Thus, prisoner failed to establish that error affected his sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cornell, Nos: 04-3672/04-3791,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contrary to a defendant's claim that allowing testimony that he possessed a firearm and robbed two of the government's witnesses served the purpose of showing his bad character, such evidence was used to show his involvement in an ongoing conspiracy; thus Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) was inapplicable. Evidence that he threatened a witness was admissible.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Tyco Elec. Corp., CASE NO. 04-5043,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee failed to establish prima facie case under ADEA because employee's statistical evidence did not distinguish between employees who left voluntarily as part of RIF and those, like him, who were terminated and because employee failed to show that employer had a duty to inform him of new vacancies and give him priority in hiring to fill them.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
