 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Colvin v. Barnhart, No. 06-3517,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided , February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that a claimant was not entitled to DIB or SSI was supported by substantial evidence because she was not disabled pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 423 as she was able to perform her past duties as a cutting machine operator; a rating of "poor" did not mean that she could not return to work, but, rather, it required a review of the entire record.
|
|||||
| Cotten v. Davis, No. 05-5619,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of habeas petition was affirmed because state court properly concluded both that inmate's due process right to a timely revocation hearing was not triggered and that he had no due process right to force a revocation decision so that the remainder of his Tennessee sentence could be served concurrently with his Florida sentence.
|
|||||
| Fitts v. Sicker, No. 04-2232,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a plaintiff made general arguments that he was denied access to the courts because his legal papers were stored in the correctional facility's property room and prison personnel allegedly stole most of his legal documents, but never specifically stated what documents were stolen or sent away, plaintiff did not allege an actual injury.
|
|||||
| Goxhaj v. Gonzales, No. 06-3075,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's decision to deny an illegal immigrant from Albania's petition for asylum was supported by substantial evidence from the record. The limited facts presented in the alien's testimony did not sufficiently support a finding of a well-founded fear of persecution.
|
|||||
| Granger v. Hurt, No. 05-3275,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where receiving consecutive sentences was not violation of Ohio law and was strictly controlled by statute, which was later invalidated by case law, appellant failed to set forth evidence that trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences violated Ohio's sentencing statutes. Court was unable to find prejudice under the Strickland analysis.
|
|||||
| Musaj v. Gonzales, No. 05-4162,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A federal court of appeals did not have jurisdiction, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(1), to review the denial of aliens' requests for relief, or of their motion to reopen, as they did not file timely petitions for review of the decisions; also, their 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(c)(6)(A) motion to reconsider was untimely and they gave no basis for tolling.
|
|||||
| Ozier v. RTM Enters. of Ga., Inc., Case No. 05-2027,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former employer alleged discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981, summary judgment was properly entered for the employer because he failed to present direct evidence of either, and the employer's reason for firing him, that his register drawer was short, was not pretextual.
|
|||||
| Reminder v. Roadway Express, Inc., No. 06-3224,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was no direct evidence that employee, who lost his job as result of a reduction-in-force, was terminated because of his age, and any circumstantial evidence presented only pertained to marketing department and not sales department, the department in which he was employed, summary judgment in favor of the employer was properly granted.
|
|||||
| Templeton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 06-5545,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was substantial evidence to support the ALJ's adverse credibility finding and conclusions that neither the claimant's pain nor the side effects of pain medication precluded him from performing the identified jobs and ALJ properly determined the claimant's specific limitations when it posed a hypothetical to the vocational expert.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cross, No. 05-4111,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the district court evaluated the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, including the circumstances of the offense, the need for deterrence and just punishment, and the need for vocational training, the application of the Guidelines range and the other § 3553(a) factors was adequate and explicit, and the sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
