 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Olmsted Falls v. United States EPA, No. 04-3720,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Army Corps of Engineers was properly granted judgment on action of a citizen and down-river municipality to set aside a § 404 dredge and fill permit issued under the CWA because it was not arbitrary and capricious in finding that an expansion did not contribute to a significant degradation of water given a city's proposed compensatory mitigation.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n v. Daviess County, No. 04-6498,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County ordinance that required disposal of solid waste at the county's landfill or transfer station was unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; the ordinance was facially discriminatory against out-of-state interests because it prohibited waste collectors from using out-of-state facilities.
|
|||||
| Reeb v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., Belmont Corr. Inst., No. 04-3994,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in certifying class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2); U.S. Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit held that individual compensatory damages are not recoverable by Rule 23(b)(2) class under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., because such claims necessarily predominate over requested declaratory and injunctive relief.
|
|||||
| United States v. Blood, Nos. 04-5101 / 04-5261,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Decided , January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support jury's verdict finding defendants guilty of possession of counterfeit and forged securities with intent to deceive another, 18 U.S.C.S. § 513(a), where § 513(a)'s "with intent to deceive another" requirement encompassed the intent to deceive the purported issuers of the fraudulent securities.
|
|||||
| United States v. Horton, Case No. 04-2491,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals vacated defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), because district court increased defendant's offense level, pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5), based on its finding that he possessed firearm in connection with another felony, instead of submitting that issue to a jury.
|
|||||
| United States v. Vasser, No. 05-5475,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a new trial because defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from a communication between a court officer and the jury, as the jury would have received the same information from a transcript that was to be presented the jury.
|
|||||
| Belt v. United States Dep't of Labor, Case Nos. 04-3487, 04-3926,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: U.S. Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board (ARB) properly dismissed former employee's complaint against employer for alleged violation of whistle-blower provision of Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 5851, where substantial evidence supported ARB's conclusion that complaint was untimely and that 180-day period was not tolled.
|
|||||
| Devonshire v. Johnston Group First Advisors, No. 04-4390,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where client's expert admitted that client could have lost just as much money during recession with portfolio that was properly diversified and did not include allegedly risky investments promoted by investment advisor, client failed to proffer evidence that investment advisor's alleged negligence caused client's losses.
|
|||||
| United States v. Spates, Case No. 04-4515,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated where ample factual support existed for an obstruction of justice enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 where defendant clearly knew of his pending criminal charges, but rather than cooperate with authorities, he misled them and moved with his family out of state.
|
|||||
| Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., No. 04-4159,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment denying parents' a preliminary injunction was affirmed where they never argued before the district court that their son's preschool was appropriate stay-put placement for their son under 20 U.S.C.S. § 1415(j) and that it became unavailable because the son was denied admission, and therefore their argument on appeal was waived.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
