 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carver v. City of Cincinnati, No. 06-3230,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on claim they violated decedent's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights, as officers had no general duty to aid decedent when they entered apartment and found him lying on couch. State-created danger exception did not apply absent evidence that any private rescue was available or attempted.
|
|||||
| Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Donelson, Nos. 06-1211/1478,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an employment discrimination case, arbitrators did not exceed their powers or manifestly disregard the law in finding against the employer because they were not required, pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101 and case law, to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law where arbitration agreements were executed post-dispute.
|
|||||
| Surles v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Nos. 05-6713/6743,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Verdict in favor of passenger in personal injury action was affirmed because admission of the passenger's expert was proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 702 because his background and experience left him well-positioned to "assist the trier of fact" to make sense of the prior incident reports from the perspective of a specialist in threat assessment.
|
|||||
| Tuttle v. Metro. Gov't, Nos. 05-6055/6471,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of employer in ADEA action was reversed because based upon the evidence of inconsistent testimony and statements regarding the employee's performance evaluation, in addition to the age-related statements and other evidence of discrimination, the jury had sufficient evidence of pretext.
|
|||||
| United States v. Grant, No. 05-4388,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There could be little doubt as to the sufficiency of the factual basis for the 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c) plea. The factual record before the district court clearly showed that the government was in the position to prove that defendant possessed a firearm with the goal of furthering his drug trafficking business.
|
|||||
| Stokes v. Williams, No. 05-3020,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2007, Decided , January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse discretion in denying Ohio inmate's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion seeking to overturn earlier dismissal of § 2254 habeas petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d); change in decisional law regarding interpretation of statute of limitations under § 2244(d)(2) was not "extraordinary circumstance" meriting relief.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Jones, No. 05-2646,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A habeas court erred in holding that a petitioner had demonstrated that a conflict of interest adversely affected his counsel's performance in jointly representing the petitioner and his brother. All of the conflicts cited were either hypothetical or were not supported by the facts; therefore habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 was reversed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
