 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boscheratto v. Ford Motor Co., No. 05-1018,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer's alleged failure to process signature cards designating beneficiaries of a decedent's assets invested in an employee benefit account caused no harm, and thus did not support ERISA claims; the decedent, then living, later filed a form revoking his prior beneficiary designations.
|
|||||
| Hodges v. Bell, Case No. 04-6167,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because habeas corpus proceeding did not extend to conditions of confinement, and because requiring institution to videotape every instance in which its officers moved inmate was not necessary in aid of district court's jurisdiction to determine legality of inmate's state-court conviction and sentence, district court's order lacked authority.
|
|||||
| In re Powerhouse Licensing, LLC, No. 05-2327,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Decided , March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants in a fraudulent transfer action submitted an affidavit from their attorney regarding the transfers, defendants waived the attorney-client privilege because certain statements contained in the affidavit represented opinions, based upon confidential communications, that related to the heart of the legal claims at issue.
|
|||||
| Sherrod v. Genzyme Corp., Case No. 05-1217,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment against former employee in her suit alleging employer violated Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.478 and Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.351; Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774a(1) specifically authorizes noncompete agreements, which were not a type of "consideration" barred by the other two statutes.
|
|||||
| Spears v. Overbey, No. 05-5355,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was properly granted summary judgment in malpractice action; although attorney represented bank previously, there was no direct adversity under Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.130(1.7) in preparation of borrowers' note and mortgage with bank or in representing borrowers' at closing, and representation was not materially limited by attorney's interests.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tiser, No. 04-2284,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where district court stated that it would require defendant to pay the cost of his incarceration as a fine, but it appeared that the court intended to impose a fine within the range calculated under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2k2.1(a)(5), but the cost of incarceration would exceed that range, a remand for resentencing was necessary.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 04-6473,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although officers never transported defendant to the police station for booking or to any other location, a suspect's ultimate physical location was not the conclusive factor that defined an arrest. Because officers had conducted a lawful arrest in the case, officers had constitutional authority to search defendant's person and his vehicle at time.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
