 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Davis v. Coyle, No. 02-3227,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Decided , January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Death-sentenced Ohio inmate was entitled to § 2254 habeas relief allowing new sentencing hearing; Ohio courts committed prejudicial U.S. Const. amends. VIII, XIV error in denying Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2929.04 right to present mitigating evidence of post-sentence good prison behavior at resentencing hearing after original sentence was reversed.
|
|||||
| Floyd v. Caruso, No. 05-1271,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of an inmate's lawsuit that contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims was reversed and remanded so that the district court could proceed with the exhausted claims while dismissing the unexhausted claims according to the holding of the United States Supreme Court.
|
|||||
| Hall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 05-2530,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court had jurisdiction over suit against an insurer for breach of contract under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C.S. § 1453(b), because, although the suit was initially filed before CAFA's enactment, an amended complaint commenced a new action after its enactment and the new class representative was not already a "party."
|
|||||
| United States v. Edwards, No. 05-2634,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To the extent a prosecutor's comment in his closing argument introduced additional evidence about fingerprints on a weapon, they were arguably improper. However, defendant charged with violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g) could not establish reversible error because the brief comment could not have plausibly constituted flagrant prosecutorial misconduct.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
