 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brunner v. Hampson, Nos. 05-3123/05-3191,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not have personal jurisdiction over the Canadian booking agency under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2307.382 where the injuries to the U.S. Citizens did not arise from the agency's solicitation of business in Ohio, but allegedly from the condition of the facilities and equipment provided by the booking agency at the site of the hunt.
|
|||||
| Burrell v. Kapture, No. 04-1314,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even without excluded evidence, petitioner still presented his "friendly fire" defense to jury based on his own testimony. Jury, however, apparently did not believe it. In view of abundant evidence supporting verdict and in view of reasonable basis for trial court's evidentiary ruling, he failed to supply legitimate ground for disturbing verdict.
|
|||||
| Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 05-1699,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly upheld a decision denying a claimant SSI benefits; rather than simply accepting a prior finding that the claimant was not disabled, the ALJ considered the prior finding, noted that the evidence suggested deterioration, and evaluated the claimant's evidence and argument independently.
|
|||||
| Kimble v. Hoso, No. 04-3837,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the district court had granted an extension to plaintiffs' counsel to answer the city's summary judgment motion in plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, the appellate court noted that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291 because the district court's delay in ruling on the city's summary judgment did not amount to a denial of the motion.
|
|||||
| Mortensen v. Comm'r, No. 05-1344,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A negligence penalty was properly assessed against a taxpayer under 26 U.S.C.S. § 6662(a) due to loss deductions based on investments because the taxpayer acted unreasonably in relying on the opinions of the investment promoters and failing to seek independent advice regarding the investments and the tax information.
|
|||||
| Network Health Servs. v. Georgetown Cmty., LLC, No. 04-6377,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although hospital, in terminating a contract with a health services company, breached the contract, the hospital was properly awarded summary judgment as the company failed to produce any evidence that might establish the amount of damages to which it was entitled, and, in the absence of such evidence, any damage award would have been speculative.
|
|||||
| Ross v. Southwestern/Great Am., Inc., Case No. 05-5799,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) a breach of contract action by an employee against an employer; a merger clause in the parties' contract addressed prior contracts and negotiations between the parties, not prior conduct, and the contract did not limit the temporal reach of termination clause to post-contract conduct.
|
|||||
| Spero Elec. Corp. v. IBEW, Local Union No. 1377, No. 04-4142,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where arbitrator had stated that a letter had expressly amended the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the labor union regarding whether the employer had given up its right to unilaterally change its work rule regarding a no-smoking policy, and that was not the intent of the parties, the arbitrator had exceeded his authority.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lowe, Case No. 05-1189,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court agreed with defendant's argument that the district court issued erroneous jury instruction on the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking claim count. The court vacated defendant's conviction on the violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1)(A), and remanded for case to the district court on that count.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
