 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fowler v. UAW, No. 04-2180,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a brief order, without stating its analysis, for the reasons stated by the district court, the appeals court upheld the summary judgment granted for a union in a member's hybrid action brought under § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act even though an arbitrator found for the member in his reinstated grievance against his employer.
|
|||||
| Fox v. Mich. State Police Dep't, No. 04-2078,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 42 U.S.C.S. § 1985 claim against police officers was properly dismissed because arrestee did not allege conspiracy or class-based motivation; summary judgment for officers on § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim was proper because illegal switchblade in plain view provided probable cause to search and arrest. Vehicle search was incident to lawful arrest.
|
|||||
| Greenburg v. Hiner, No. 05-3384,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Investors' suit alleging violation of 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a) by officers of corporation that manufactured asbestos products was properly dismissed as time-barred because investors had inquiry notice of possible fraud more than two years before filing suit; corporation announced inability to keep up with liabilities and filed for bankruptcy.
|
|||||
| Karomi v. Gonzales, NO. 04-4433,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported IJ's conclusion that Chaldean Christian Iraqi citizen was ineligible for asylum based on failure to show reasonable fear of future persecution on religious or political grounds following changed country conditions; denial of humanitarian asylum was not abuse of discretion absent evidence of severe past persecution.
|
|||||
| Makhalou v. Gonzales, No. 05-3096,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of the denial of asylum was denied because a Fifth Amendment due process claim was rejected where an alien failed to show that interpretation services denied him a full and fair hearing, and an adverse credibility determination concerning the date the alien was arrested was material to his persecution claim.
|
|||||
| Mills v. Equicredit Corp., NO. 05-1088,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court agreed with the district court's determination, and held that the consumers had failed to plead facts that had established their right to rescind the February 2000 transaction beyond the three-day rescission period, and the dismissal of the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1601 et seq., claim was proper.
|
|||||
| Overholt v. Montville Twp., 05-3118,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although plaintiffs referenced in their notice of appeal only the district court's decision granting defendants summary judgment in a § 1983 action, because an appeal from a final judgment drew into question all prior nonfinal rulings and orders, the appeals court had jurisdiction to review the district court's discovery rulings.
|
|||||
| Parker Hannifin Corp. v. Dayco Prods., No. 05-3518,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, No. 04-4371,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's holding that a challenge to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2919.123 which prohibited the off-label use of an abortion drug was likely to succeed on the merits because substantial medical evidence had been presented that § 2919.123 could pose a significant risk to women's health or lives was not an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
