 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bolton v. Berghuis, No. 05-1358,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate did not file his federal petition for habeas relief until six years after his conviction became final and thus was untimely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d). Mandatory tolling did not apply because if the inmate had timely filed his petition it would have only contained unexhausted claim and thus would not have been a mixed petition.
|
|||||
| Humphreys v. Argabrite, 04-6347,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(2) set forth one-year statute of limitations for filing a legal malpractice claim against counsel, court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of former counsel. Client had one year from date that divorce decree became final in December 2000, and she filed suit in 2003, long past the limitations period.
|
|||||
| McMullen v. Meijer, Inc., 04-2478,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the general contract law of Michigan, which was the state of residence for both parties, provided that the failure of a distinct part of a contract did not void valid, severable provisions, the appellate court agreed with the district court's determination that the arbitrator-selection provision of an employment agreement could be severed.
|
|||||
| Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., No. 04-4109,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 13, 2006, Decided , January 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On collateral appeal, the court concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was inapplicable to an FDCPA suit against a debt collector for filing a false affidavit in a state garnishment action, and the court affirmed that the debt collector was a complaining witness, without absolute immunity, as neither rationale in Briscoe v. LaHue applied.
|
|||||
| Cooey v. Strickland, No. 06-4660,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the current action brought by the inmates was related to other litigation that also challenged the state's protocol for executing capital offenders through lethal injection, the appellate court transferred the state's motion to vacate a stay in an inmate's execution to the panel of the appellate court that was familiar with the issues.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
