 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brilliance Audio, Inc. v. Haights Cross Communs., Inc., No. 05-1209,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an audiobook producer alleged claims of copyright and trademark infringement under 17 U.S.C.S. § 109, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1114, 1125(a), (c), its copyright claims were properly dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the first sale doctrine, 17 U.S.C.S. § 109(b)(1)(A), did not apply; it applied only to sound recordings of musical works.
|
|||||
| Bruder v. Smith, No. 06-1278,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former assistant county prosecutor sued under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging that her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated when her employment was terminated, defendants' appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction reinstating her was moot as, in the meantime, she had been afforded due process via a hearing.
|
|||||
| EMI April Music, Inc. v. 1064 Old River Rd., Inc., No. 06-3484,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court noted that although it had great sympathy for one of the defendant's loss of his brother, the court found little basis upon which to rule that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting defendant's argument of excusable neglect in his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) motion.
|
|||||
| Hudson v. Hudson, No. 05-6575,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed the district court's denial of two police officers' motion to dismiss, finding that officers' failure to arrest man offended neither the procedural nor substantive prongs of U.S. Const. amend. XIV's Due Process Clause. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs' constitutional claims against them.
|
|||||
| Mich. Family Res., Inc. v. SEIU Local 517M, No. 04-2564,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a union, under § 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C.S. § 185, appealed the vacation of an arbitration award in its favor, an appellate court reversed, overruling the four-part inquiry that it had previously used, as the arbitrator acted within his authority in interpreting a collective bargaining agreement, though he chose the wrong justification.
|
|||||
| Rucker v. Potter, No. 05-4143,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former postal employee's 90-day period, plus five days, expired on April 18, 2005, and the employee had not presented any evidence that notice of the decision that the EEO decision that rejected his claims of discrimination had not been received within that period, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the employee's pro se action.
|
|||||
| Simmons v. Kapture, No. 03-2609,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus where he argued that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, and that the State should have provided him with counsel to represent him in the appellate process under Halbert v. Michigan, because Halbert did not create a new rule and, thus, it applied retroactively to affect his habeas corpus claim.
|
|||||
| United States v. Procter, NO. 06-5586,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's argument that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 by failing to mention in the plea colloquy that defendant could not withdraw his plea if the court did not accept the government's sentencing recommendations could have been brought in his first appeal and was therefore waived in his appeal after resentencing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Smith, No. 05-4425,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 26, 2007, Decided , January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court's finding increased the recommended, advisory range, but that range was still below the statutory maximum penalty as set forth in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3. The district judge examined defendant's criminal history and was within his prerogative to consider it extensive and egregious.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
