 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Del Bosque v. United States, No. 04-1389,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 petitioner failed to carry his burden of proof that he was entitled to equitable tolling since he had constructive knowledge of the one-year limitations period, and he had not diligently to pursued his rights by waiting nearly two years after his co-conspirator's conviction was reversed before he filed his § 2255 motion.
|
|||||
| EEOC v. Robert Bosch Corp., No. 05-1099,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A jury should have been allowed to determine how far an employer was willing to go to help an employee observe his Sabbath since a factual conflict existed about whether the employer had met the terms of 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e(j) by demonstrating that he was unable to reasonably accommodate the employee's religious practice without undue hardship.
|
|||||
| Modarresi v. Gonzales, No. 04-4231,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ did not abuse her discretion under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(b)(5)(D) when she denied the motion to reopen and for relief from the in absentia removal orders where the aliens received ample notice of the hearing, they were not prevented from attending the hearing by reasons beyond their control, and they were removable by clear and convincing evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 05-3250,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecutor's closing argument remarks did not constitute reversible error that affected defendant's substantial rights in trial for aiding and assisting in preparation of false tax returns, 26 U.S.C.S. § 7206(2); prosecutor rebutted defense and affirmed witness's credibility in addressing improbability of Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 sentence reduction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Martin, No. 04-6428,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Sentencing Commission complied with the statutory mandate of § 3651(b) of the Methamphetamine and Club Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-310, §§ 3601-3673, 114 Stat. 1101, 1227-46, when it promulgated the 50 percent conversion ratio for pseudoephedrine found at U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 application n. 10.
|
|||||
| United States v. Nanez, Nos. 04-5091, 04-5093,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A rational trier of fact could conclude that defendant conspired to violate the drug laws in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 846 where he indicated that he would purchase a large sports utility vehicle once he got the drug business up and running and he actively participated in a meeting, discussing drug sources and quoting drug prices for future deals.
|
|||||
| United States v. Richmond, No. 04-6230,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court violated defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under Booker by enhancing his base offense level from a 32 to a 34, based on the total amount of cocaine base he was charged with rather than the amount he pleaded guilty to, because defendant objected to the presentence report's findings.
|
|||||
| Seiden v. Potter, No. 04-1852,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of motion to dismiss was affirmed in former employee's action against Postmaster General. After change in position, employee sought pre-complaint counseling with USPS equal EEO officer, but did not do so within 45-day time frame, and employee did not challenge USPS final decision through Office of Federal Operations within 30 days.
|
|||||
| Green v. BP Prods. of. N. Am., Inc., Nos. 04-2260, 05-1317,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 1976 settlement of the disabled person's claims was valid and constituted a waiver and release of her claim to future benefits pursuant to the Michigan No-Fault Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3101 et seq. There was no evidence in the record that mistake, duress, fraud, or unconscionable advantage were involved in securing the consent judgment.
|
|||||
| Mountain Clay, Inc. v. Spivey, No. 04-4297,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of black lung benefits was affirmed because proof of a material change in conditions based on a finding of pneumoconiosis did not require the miner to prove either exposure to coal dust since the denial of his first claim, or that he had a kind of pneumoconiosis known to be latent and progressive.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
