 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burris v. Thorpe, No. 05-3269,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a citizen alleged that a police officer violated her constitutional rights by engaging in sexual intercourse with her while he was on duty and while he knew he was HIV-positive, the officer was entitled to summary judgment on the citizen's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim because the officer was not acting under color of state law.
|
|||||
| Campbell v. Robb, No. 04-1567,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landlord's statement to a Section 8 inspector was commercial speech, and therefore subject to lesser constitutional protection. Like the discriminatory statement landlord made directly to the tenant with respect to rental, his discriminatory statement to Section 8 inspector was illegal commercial speech, which the government could ban outright.
|
|||||
| Creech v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 05-5074,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit under ERISA, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B), an insurer's denial of disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on a transferable skills analysis (TSA) that it knew to be inaccurate. The TSA was based on insurer's misrepresentation that claimant worked in a more senior management position that she actually did.
|
|||||
| Franklin v. Anderson, Nos. 03-3636/03-3697,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of habeas petition on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was affirmed because counsel failed to raise the issue of the biased juror though the inmate brought it to their attention and counsel was unprepared for oral argument.
|
|||||
| Joostberns v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., No. 04-2370,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former employer was entitled to summary judgment on a former employee's FMLA and ADA claims because the employee failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employer's articulated reason for terminating him--his mailing of packages without paying from them in violation of the company's dishonesty policy--was pretextual.
|
|||||
| Morton v. UPS, No. 05-5060,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's race discrimination action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 failed because he did not discredit the employer's honest belief defense that its decision to terminate the employee was based on his previous act of dishonesty, and the other workers who were reinstated had only a first time offense of dishonesty with the employer.
|
|||||
| Pavlovich v. Nat'l City Bank, No. 04-4372,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Decided , January 9, 2006, Filed * * This decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on January 9, 2006. On January 20, 2006, the court designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bank was not liable for losses that resulted when investment advisor transferred money from bank customer's custodial account; there was no breach of custody agreement, no breach of fiduciary duty not to make unauthorized distributions, and no unauthorized wire transfer, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1304.59; economic loss rule barred negligence claim.
|
|||||
| Pavlovich v. Nat'l City Bank, No. 04-4372,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A bank was entitled to summary judgment on an investor's breach of contract claim because the bank's disbursements pursuant to an investment advisor's written directives were authorized by the relevant agreements and because the investor ratified the bank's activities by accepting them and their consequences over the course of several years.
|
|||||
| United States v. Haranda, No. 04-2214,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
