 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Black v. Surface Transp. Bd., No. 06-3045,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Decided , February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the Surface Transportation Board upheld, under former 49 U.S.C.S. § 11347, arbitrators' denial of a claim by railroad carmen who refused to be bought out or transferred when their positions were abolished, finding that they lost their benefits, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.S. § 11326, when they refused, the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
|
|||||
| Griffeth v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 06-1236,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported ALJ's determination that social security disability benefit claimant's depression was "severe" impairment but that the impairment would have little effect on claimant's ability to perform basic work-related activities; thus, claimant was not disabled because he retained residual capacity to perform past relevant work.
|
|||||
| Myers v. Dean, No. 06-3683,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of deputy clerk after unsuccessful bid against the incumbent county clerk did not violate the First Amendment because the court did not recognize a fundamental right to express one's political views through candidacy.
|
|||||
| United States v. Alexander, Nos. 05-1542, 05-1632,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although district court erred in labeling a defendant's prior conviction for carrying a concealed weapon a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 924, the error was not plain. The determination of whether carrying a concealed weapon was a "violent felony" for purposes of the Act was one where the circuits were divided.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sutton, NO. 06-5004,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentences were affirmed because under Sixth Circuit precedent, the district court did not commit error by counting defendant's five previous felony theft convictions separately. Defendant's sentence did not violate the sentencing guidelines because the consecutive sentences did not exceed the statutory maximum.
|
|||||
| Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, Case No. 03-1700,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| GenCorp, Inc. v. Olin Corp., No. 05-4439,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Decided , February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court had correctly rejected a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion made by a chemical company which had not raised on appeal the issue of whether it could be held liable under 42 U.S.C.S. § 113(f)(1) in the absence of a civil action under 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 106, 107.
|
|||||
| James v. United States, No. 03-6250,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although district court used different offenses to find that inmate had three prior felonies, inmate's sentencing guidelines were properly calculated. Insofar as inmate's claims regarding his sentencing calculations were to be construed as allegations that counsel was ineffective for failing to object at sentencing, they were also not meritorious.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
