 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kumar v. United States, No. 04-5667,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's trial counsel's representation of an insurance agency did not give rise to an actual conflict of interest because the agency did not have any interest in outcome of petitioner's trial for arson. Only insurance underwriter could have been forced to pay on the policy if petitioner had been acquitted; the agency merely sold the policy.
|
|||||
| McQueen v. Beecher Cmty. Schs., No. 04-1777,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the mother of fatally shot first-grader failed to show sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to two of the three requirements under the state-created-danger theory for violation of substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, she had no viable direct claim against defendant teacher.
|
|||||
| Pack v. Damon Corp., No. 04-2163,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the appellate court found that Michigan had abandoned the privity requirement for implied warranty claims, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer on the purchaser's implied warranty claims based on lack of privity was in error and the appellate court reversed the decision regarding the issue.
|
|||||
| Pack v. Damon Corp., No. 04-2163,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006 *, Filed* This decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on January 5, 2006. The court has now designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Michigan abandoned the privity requirement for implied-warranty claims. Thus, the district court erred when it dismissed the purchaser's implied-warranty claims under state law, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 2301 et seq., and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901 et seq., for lack of privity.
|
|||||
| Rudd v. Shelby County, Case No. 04-5939,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A county's actions demonstrated a good faith effort to safeguard a deputy sheriff who complained of sexual harassment by a fellow deputy sheriff. No reasonable jury could have concluded that the county failed to take prompt and corrective action; therefore, the county was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).
|
|||||
| United States v. Hang Le-Thy Tran, No. 04-1801,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided , January 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence seized during search of defendant's mobile home and business because alteration of search warrant and supporting affidavit by executing officer did not eliminate probable cause or render warrant invalid and deficiencies in written affidavit were cured by executing officer's oral testimony.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
