 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Caldwell v. McNutt, No. 04-2335,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not err in dismissing a prisoner's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 suit against parole board members because the prisoner had no constitutionally protected liberty interest in the granting of parole and, thus, he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under § 1983.
|
|||||
| Hairston v. AK Steel Corp., No. 04-4549,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the former employee had not supported his race-discrimination claim with evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the former employer's nondiscriminatory reasons for firing him were pretextual, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the former employer in the race discrimination action.
|
|||||
| Hensley v. City of Columbus, No. 02-3778,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided , January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Supreme Court of Ohio held Ohio property owners had interest in groundwater underlying land and that governmental interference with that right could constitute unconstitutional taking, City and private entities were not entitled to summary judgment on property owners' federal takings claim arising from removal of groundwater from property.
|
|||||
| King v. Bobby, No. 04-3844,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided , January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not violate a prisoner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by letting him proceed pro se because the prisoner clearly understood the risks of representing himself and was clearly attempting to manipulate the trial court into delaying his trial by first refusing to retain an attorney and then refusing to work with his attorney.
|
|||||
| Nader v. Land, No. 04-2428,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided , January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a candidate could not run as both an independent and with a party under Michigan Election Law, Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.590g(1), the candidate and his party voluntarily and willingly gave up their claim to run on the ballot under the Reform Party ticket by submitting and by not withdrawing a qualifying petition.
|
|||||
| Ohio v. Doe, No. 05-3880,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided , January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court concluded that the district court did not have proper subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter. The district court erred in concluding that the expiration of the attorney's first grand jury term and the issuance of a new subpoena resulted in a second action that was removable under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1442.
|
|||||
| Strickland v. Pitcher, No. 03-2113,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's habeas petition was properly denied because the medical testimony linked to the minor child victim's testimony established that the victim was sexually penetrated by the inmate and provided sufficient evidence to support his conviction under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b.
|
|||||
| Topllari v. Gonzales, No. 04-3565,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contrary to alien's argument, IJ identified major inconsistencies between alien's testimony and what he told border agent, which supported an adverse credibility finding and the denial of alien's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Minor inconsistencies IJ also identified lent support to the adverse credibility finding.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 05-5819,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because 18 U.S.C.S. § 1361 and 18 U.S.C.S. § 1853 each required an element not necessary for a conviction under the other statute, defendant was not subjected to double jeopardy when he was punished under each statute for destroying trees on federal land. Loss calculation based on "trunk formula" rather than market value was proper.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
