 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fisher v. Primstaller, No. 05-1026,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Bock, because inmate's civil rights complaint against state DOC officials contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims, district court should have proceeded with exhausted claims while dismissing unexhausted claims instead of dismissing the complaint in its entirety under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e.
|
|||||
| McLiechey v. Bristol W. Ins. Co., No. 06-1228,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of insured's claims was affirmed because Chapter 21 of the Michigan Insurance Code, Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2101 et seq., provided an adequate remedy and therefore, did not create a private cause of action and Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901 et seq., did not extend to claims under Chapter 21.
|
|||||
| Randhawa v. Gonzales, No. 05-3694,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration was not tolled by filing a petition for review because construing the time limits in 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) to allow a motion for reconsideration to be filed after a decision was rendered by the court of appeals would render 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(6) in effect a nullity.
|
|||||
| Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Granholm, Nos. 05-2146/05-2603,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In granting Michigan's motion to enforce consent judgment that arose from dispute under Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C.S. § 2701 et seq., district court committed reversible error by failing to consider Indian tribe's extrinsic evidence when it determined that "wager" was unambiguous and that promotional tokens could not have zero value.
|
|||||
| Servo Kinetics, Inc. v. Tokyo Precision Instruments Co., No. 05-2741,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Japanese law, a servo valve manufacturer could not terminate a distribution agreement with a dependent distributor with which it had a 15-year commercial relationship for the purpose of benefitting the manufacturer's shareholders, including the manufacturer's parent corporation, at the expense of the distributor.
|
|||||
| United States v. Oglesby, No. 05-6528,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court could only disturb sentencing decision of district court in face of facts that illustrated objectively that sentence was longer than necessary to effectuate the goals of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) and, thus, unreasonable. Because defendant could not point to such facts, the court concluded that the sentence was substantively reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stover, Nos. 05-3562/05-3638,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 30, 2007, Decided , January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were properly convicted under 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841, 843, 846; district court was not required to sua sponte inquire into waiver of right to testify, protective sweep did not exceed scope of permissible search under U.S. Const. amend. IV, and tape recordings of co-conspirator's nontestimonial statements did not violate Confrontation Clause.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
