 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Denczak v. Ford Motor Co., No. 06-3279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment for employer in employee's action alleging failure to accommodate in violation of ADA; no reasonable jury could conclude that employee was "otherwise qualified" for welding job, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12111(8), because ability to meet production quota was "essential function" of assembly-line related job.
|
|||||
| Koury v. City of Canton, No. 05-4613,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where individuals and a business sued a city and city officials under § 1983, alleging that their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when city code provisions were selectively enforced, summary judgment was properly granted to defendants as the claims were time-barred, precluded by res judicata, or insufficient.
|
|||||
| Lawhorn v. Nortel Networks, Inc., Case No. 06-5312,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly upheld a plan administrator's denial of long term disability benefits and granted judgment to the administrator based on the administrative record because the district court properly set forth the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the facts in the administrative record.
|
|||||
| Oody v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. Pension Plan, No. 05-6812,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A claimant's request for benefits under a plan administered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1001 et seq., was properly denied because he failed to submit sufficient objective evidence establishing that he was permanently and totally disabled under the plan, even when he was told what type of information to provide.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 05-5438,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court was not required to suppress as involuntary defendant's confession that she participated in scheme to defraud U.S. Treasury. Although defendant pointed to several statements in meetings with investigator to show that she thought she would not be prosecuted, she did not show that investigator engaged in objectively coercive conduct.
|
|||||
| Urban Assocs. v. Standex Elecs., Inc., No. 06-1279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court improperly granted summary judgment to manufacturer on sales representative enterprise's breach of contract claim as manufacturer did not pay commissions for orders received prior to contract termination and reasonable factfinder could find that parties intended enterprise to receive commissions on orders received before termination.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Morgan, Nos. 05-5615/5616,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Decided , February 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers had probable cause to arrest two plaintiffs when they exited a residence. Officers were not required to investigate further before placing plaintiffs in police vehicles for transport to the police station or placing them in holding cells. Officers were not required to make separate probable cause determination at each step of arrest.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
