 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Adams, No. 04-6450,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed ** This Decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on January 20, 2006. On February 22, 2006. the court designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court found that insured's homeowner's insurance policy precluded coverage for losses incurred due to insured's intentional acts, and it affirmed district court's order granting summary judgment to insurer on claims filed by insured's ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend, seeking compensation for injuries they sustained when insured shot them.
|
|||||
| Evans v. Unumprovident Corp., No. 05-5154,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In suit under ERISA, 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 1001-1461, insurer acted arbitrarily and capriciously in terminating long-term disability benefits. Insurer's reliance solely on file reviews by in-house physicians was questionable in light of factual inaccuracies contained therein and fact that they categorically dismissed treating physician's reliable opinion.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Forum Health, No. 04-4160,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was properly awarded summary judgment on the employee's failure to promote claim under Title VII and § 1981 where the employer offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for promoting the Caucasian employee, that the subject appointment arose from a reorganization and did not involve a vacant position.
|
|||||
| In re Bowen, No. 04-1286,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where, based on circuit law that was later clarified, inmate could not have raised his unexhausted effective-assistance-of-counsel claims in his first habeas petition but had to proceed on his other claims while they were timely, his later petition, raising ineffective-assistance claims, was not second petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(b).
|
|||||
| Kacaj v. Gonzales, 04-3315,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an alien who petitioned for review of the decision denying him asylum and other relief failed to report for removal despite having received a notice to report, the alien became a fugitive. Based on his fugitive status, the court granted the motion of the Attorney General of the United States to dismiss the petition.
|
|||||
| Randolph v. GMC, 04-4498,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an ERISA case, former employee who sought early retirement benefits even though he had been dismissed for cause waived any challenge he had to application of the "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review of the plan administrator's decision by implicitly and explicitly acknowledging that standard of review in his filings in the trial court.
|
|||||
| Sako v. Gonzales, No. 04-3426,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA properly denied alien's motion to reopen removal proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel because alien's asylum claim was not prejudiced in any way. Lost opportunity to appeal adverse decision because of ineffective assistance of counsel could not form basis of due process claim because appeal would not have been successful.
|
|||||
| United States v. Coffee, No. 04-1758,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An affiant's statements that he set up a controlled drug buy and took necessary precautions before and after the orchestrated purchase adequately corroborated a confidential informant's information and, thus, provided sufficient probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant for defendant's residence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Isaiah, No. 04-4343,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly declined to award criminal defendant attorney fees under Hyde Amendment, Pub. L. No. 105-119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2519 (1997) (reprinted in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3006a, Statutory Notes). Although district court granted defendant a judgment of acquittal, the question of whether she had specific intent to defraud was "a close one."
|
|||||
| United States v. Till, No. 04-2128,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 20, 2006, Decided , January 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not have to reference expressly 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) for its alternative sentence, imposed under an advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, to be valid; its discussion of factors like defendant's history of violence was sufficient to allow review and indicate its consideration of § 3553 factors.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
