 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Browning v. Dep't of the Army, No. 04-5219,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment for the Army in an employee's action alleging age discrimination in violation of ADEA; although a younger employee was promoted, the employee failed to present sufficient evidence of pretext because he never asserted a link between subjective matrix criteria and any discriminatory intent by the Army.
|
|||||
| Evans v. Pearson Enters., No. 04-2229,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although "probate exception" did not deprive district court of jurisdiction to hear shareholder's breach of trust claim against bank that served as trustee for revocable trust, Michigan probate court judgment collaterally estopped shareholder from arguing fraudulent concealment, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5855; thus, statute of limitation barred claim.
|
|||||
| Logan v. United States, No. 04-5325,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided , January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an inmate was convicted of arson, he was not entitled to relief under § 2255 based upon the argument that the jury, not the district judge, should have determined the fact that deaths resulted from the fire under 18 U.S.C.S. § 844(i), because he procedurally defaulted his Jones claim by failing to raise the issue at trial or on appeal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
