 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brooking v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 04-6478,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of long-term disability benefits violated 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 because it was uncontradicted that the claimant could not work in a sedentary job because she was unable to sit for more than four hours a day and that sitting was her most significant pain-provoking activity.
|
|||||
| Camara v. Gonzales, No. 04-4163,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(1) to review the BIA's denial of the alien's requests for asylum and withholding of removal because the alien had not filed a notice of appeal of that decision and an appeal of a motion for reconsideration was not a substitute for an appeal of the original decision.
|
|||||
| Dunn v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 04-3826,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's product liability action was timely under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.10(A) because up until her surgery for a bowel obstruction, plaintiff was unaware that absorbable sutures used in her hysterectomy three years ago were defective and her prior bladder problems were not the normal problems associated with her hysterectomy.
|
|||||
| Polkow v. CSX Transp., No. 04-4060,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. France, No. 04-2542,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to suppress was affirmed, but on different grounds, because instead of assessing the "totality-of-the-circumstances" the district court erroneously focused on isolated issues and ignored other indicia of reliability. Taken as a whole, the affidavit provided sufficient facts from which the magistrate could find probable cause.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hope, No. 05-1201,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court acknowledged defendant's mental health issues but found that other 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, such as defendant's long criminal history and the need to protect the public, militated against a lesser sentence, defendant's 174-month sentence for having violated 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2113 and 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) was not unreasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jamieson, Nos. 02-3403/03-4578,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. West, No. 04-4069,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Any constitutional error from the admission of statements defendant made when police continued to question him after defendant arguably invoked his right to remain silent was harmless in light of the overwhelming independent of defendant's guilt; defendant was caught "red-handed" and his defenses were unbelievable.
|
|||||
| Weaver v. Wingard, No. 04-3236,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied because his Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by a conflict of interest where there was no showing that the attorney's performance was deficient or objectively unreasonable; the attorney's cross-examination of a former client in a murder trial was sufficient.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
