 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ciminillo v. Streicher, No. 04-4346,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in analyzing citizen's § 1983 excessive force claim against officer under U.S. Const. amend. XIV; evidence showed that officer shot citizen with beanbag in effort to restrain movement. Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on U.S. Const. amend. IV claim because his action during riot was objectively unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Lavender v. City of Blue Ash, No. 05-3058,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no constitutional violation because initial stop was supported by the reasonable suspicion required by Terry v. Ohio, and because officers who detained plaintiff had reasonable belief that armed robber might have been in car. Officers were justified in using force to secure scene and thoroughness of their search.
|
|||||
| United States v. Arroyo, No. 04-4207,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a district court's sentence in a drug case was an exercise of discretion due to the granting of a downward departure for substantial assistance, the court erred by reopening the case because such exceeded the authority given under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Decarlo, No. 04-5813,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under circumstances, Double Jeopardy Clause was violated when defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2241(c), 2423(b) of traveling in interstate commerce with intent to engage in sex with minor female because § 2423(b) was a lesser included offense. Also, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A3.1(b)(2)(A) "victim" included undercover agent.
|
|||||
| United States v. McBride, No. 04-4347,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a district court mentioned 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) and actually considered the individual factors contained therein, the appellate court reviewed the sentencing proceedings and, pursuant to Webb, found that the district court's procedural and substantive determinations were reasonable. Therefore, the court approved the 78 month sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ward, No. 04-2342,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Drug and weapons convictions were affirmed as introduction of prior acts evidence was more probative than prejudicial and no rational jury could have found defendant possessed one of the guns in front of him on the table but not the other. Resentencing was ordered as trial court committed plain error in sentencing defendant under mandatory USSG.
|
|||||
| Yolton v. El Paso Tenn. Pipeline Co., Nos. 04-1182/04-1818/04-1821/04-2492,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided , January 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the retirees and the surviving spouses were likely to succeed on their claim that their health care benefits were fully vested for life, and the contract between two parties unambiguously allocated the full costs of those benefits to one of the parties, the decision was affirmed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
