 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lueckel, No. 03-1139,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, No. 03-2360,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Decided , January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in finding that IRS improperly disallowed 26 U.S.C.S. § 163(a) deduction for interest paid on corporate-owned life insurance policies; economic sham analysis improperly included highly-contingent positive cash flows projected for future years where such cash flows would have drastically departed from corporation's past conduct.
|
|||||
| Golden v. Town of Collierville, No. 04-6008,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 suit, a district court properly granted summary judgment on a firefighter's procedural due process claim because defendants retained the discretion to rescind the firefighter's promotion after it was proposed and, thus, the firefighter did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the promotion.
|
|||||
| Hall v. Consol of Kentucky, No. 04-6518,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's dismissal of a former employee's complaint was affirmed because neither Grzyb exception applied and Kentucky's employment-at-will doctrine was not altered, the former employee failed to state a claim for outrage/intentional infliction of emotional distress, and an employee handbook did not create an implied employment contract.
|
|||||
| Scott v. FirstMerit Corp., No. 04-4407,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment in favor of employer on employee's disability and race discrimination claims under ADA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 et seq., and Title VII, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., because employee failed to show that employer's proffered reason for her discharge--falsification of bank records--was pretextual.
|
|||||
| Sutton v. St Jude Med., Inc., No. 04-5211,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Tallman v. Elizabethtown Police Dep't, No. 04-5723,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At the moment of the incident, in which the individual was accidentally shot following a high-speed chase, it was not unreasonable for the officer to perceive that the individual posed a serious threat to his safety. Thus, the individual's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, Case No. 05-1068,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The imposition of supervised release following a maximum 24-month prison term pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(h) was error because, although there was no violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(h) permitted imposition of supervised release only where the district court imposed less than the maximum prison term.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
