 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McNamara v. City of Rittman, No. 02-3965,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Decided , January 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City residents' U.S. Const. amend. V takings claim against city under § 1983 was barred by statute of limitations, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.10; residents knew of their injury in 1994 before Ohio Supreme Court's Levin decision, which provided adequate procedure for takings claimants in Ohio courts, and thus claim was ripe for review in 1994.
|
|||||
| OXY USA, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., No. 06-3158,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the predecessor to the owner of a manufacturing business was subject to CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 9601 et seq., liability for the cost of a landfill clean up under 42 U.S.C.S. § 9607 for disposing hazardous waste, the buyer did not have to indemnify it because the purchase agreement meant for the closing to demarcate the buyer's future liability.
|
|||||
| Stringfield v. Graham, No. 04-5777,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A tenured professor who was removed from her position as a nursing program director did not have a liberty-interest due process claim against the university and dean because she had not requested a name-clearing hearing and the dean's letter dismissing her from the directorship did not morally stigmatize her but merely suggested incompetence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pearson, No. 05-6736,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an innocent bystander was shot, defendant's 235-month sentence for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g) was proper as it was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, and, while the federal district court did not expressly consider each 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factor, it provided enough reasoning to provide for meaningful appellate review.
|
|||||
| United States v. Thomas, No. 05-6652,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in modifying defendant's supervised release conditions to require participation in sex-offender assessment program; modification was improper under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 3553(a), 3583(d) because it was not reasonably related to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.S. § 2113(a), was based on remote conviction, and imposed unnecessary deprivation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
