 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fricke v. E.I. Dupont Co., No. 05-6521, 05-6522,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former employee alleged discrimination based on age and disability under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C.S. § 623, the ADA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12112 et seq., and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 344.040 (2006), summary judgment was properly granted to his employer as he was not replaced by a person under age 40 and he was not disabled.
|
|||||
| Grace v. City of Detroit, No. 05-1333,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In determining damages under § 1983 class action arising from city's pre-employment residency requirements that violated U.S. Const. amend. XIV, district court properly found that plaintiffs were required to reapply with city in order to mitigate damages in light of finding that city's employment was unique. Rule in Title VII cases did not apply.
|
|||||
| Rufo v. Dave & Busters, Inc., No. 06-3111,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for employer was proper in employee's action alleging age discrimination and retaliation in violation of 29 U.S.C.S. § 623 of ADEA and of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 4112.14, .99, .02(I) in relation to the failure to promote; employee failed to challenge employer's nondiscriminatory reasons and, thus, failed to establish pretext.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Bock, No. 04-1376,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied § 2254 relief following felony firearm conviction under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b; sufficient evidence showed that petitioner had constructive possession of firearms and power to exercise dominion over marijuana when he set up drug deal at his house. Logical nexus was not an element of offense under § 750.227b.
|
|||||
| Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Whitehouse-Franklin, L.L.C., No. 06-5554,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nothing between the judgment debtors and the intervenor offered any indication that the signatures on stock-sale agreements were meant to suffice as endorsements. Therefore, at the time of garnishment the stock and its proceeds belonged to judgment debtors which permitted the company to garnish the proceeds in partial satisfaction of its judgment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pennington, NO. 06-5003,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following defendant's guilty plea and jury conviction on nine counts of robbery and gun offenses that arose from robberies of store and bank, district court did not commit reversible error by using term "reasonable" at sentencing; district court properly considered 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) and advisory Guidelines range in imposing 780-month sentence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
