 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. Bank One, N.A., No. 05-3247,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: African-American employee failed to show that employer's legitimate reason for terminating her was pretextual in violation of 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2 where sales goals program was not racially discriminatory, it was not enforced in a discriminatory manner, and employee failed to meet sales goals in 2002 and 2003.
|
|||||
| Koxha v. Gonzales, No. 05-3178,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of asylum was affirmed because given the cumulative effect of the inconsistencies regarding the death of the alien's husband, the alleged beating at a political demonstration and the alleged attempted kidnapping, there was substantial evidence to support the IJ's adverse credibility finding.
|
|||||
| Linadi v. Gonzales, No. 04-4507,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT was properly denied as 1) she lacked credibility as witnesses did not testify about attacks at political rallies; 2) her testimony about seeking medical treatment after an attack contradicted her asylum application; and 3) she did not show a fear of future persecution.
|
|||||
| Nye v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 05-3136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Decided , February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Passenger's, who was injured in a car/train collision, contentions that preemption did not apply because crossbucks sign was experimental or that it was not an improvement project had no impact on the fact that the crossbucks were placed on the crossing with federal funds by the railroad in 1995, and that was all that was required for preemption.
|
|||||
| Ohio ex rel. Petro v. Bulgartabac Holding Group, No. 04-4228,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit between the State of Ohio and a Bulgarian holding company, where the federal district court remanded the action to state court because, inter alia, the removal was untimely, appellate review was barred by 28 U.S.C.S. § 1447(d) because the remand order was based on at least one defect in removal under § 1447(c).
|
|||||
| Qendrime Jaupi v. Gonzales, No. 04-4486,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the BIA failed to point to substantial evidence to support its conclusion that the government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158 by demonstrating a fundamental change in circumstances, the aliens' petition for review was granted, and the BIA's removal order was vacated.
|
|||||
| See, Inc. v. Imago Eyewear Pty, Ltd., NO. 04-2388,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attendance at one trade show in New York and a website that permitted users to contact defendant through an on-line form were insufficient contacts with the United States to satisfy due process; therefore, jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) was improper.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ediger, No. 05-5350,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant had the requisite mens rea for conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1343, 1341, because the jury could have reasonably concluded that the state would not have approved a sole source contract with a nonexistent company that was later created only for the purpose of servicing the contract and she had personal financial stake in the company.
|
|||||
| United States v. Renteria-Garcia, No. 04-6359,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the district court treated the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual as mandatory, did not state an alternative sentence under an advisory Guidelines regime, and sentenced defendant at the low end of the Guidelines range, the United States did not establish that district court's plain error was not prejudicial. A remand was required.
|
|||||
| United States v. Washington, Case Nos. 03-6573, 04-5364, 03-6599,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict first defendant of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841, 846, as a co-conspirator and a co-defendant testified that they engaged in drug-dealing activities with him, and he admitted in a tape recorded statement that he received and then resold large quantities of drugs.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
