 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Sears v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., No. 06-3616,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The claims of employees for severance benefits and injunctive relief under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B), (a)(3), and for breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1104(a), were properly dismissed as, even if their employer did not disclose its right to amend their severance plan, procedural violations of ERISA did not support substantive damages.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dixon, No. 05-6310,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2007, Decided , March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reviewing the relevant factors, the court concluded that defendant had not met his burden of offering a fair and just reason for withdrawing his guilty plea. A two-year delay was significant, and absent compelling reasons to overlook such a delay, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw.
|
|||||
| United States v. Shalash, No. 06-3018,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Two-point enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1 was proper where the appellate court found that defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of the scheme where defendant would bring individuals to a co-defendant, who was a clerk in the state board of motor vehicles, for fraudulent government documentation.
|
|||||
| Bennett v. United States Dep't of Agric., No. 06-3350,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: That a horse trainer violated the Horse Protection Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1821 et seq., was supported by substantial evidence as he stopped an inspection he found unreasonable; that an exhibitor violated the Act if he refused an inspection that was not egregious, based on his belief that it was unreasonable, was a reasonable statutory interpretation.
|
|||||
| Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 06-5622,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ violated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) when he failed to mention opinion of social security disability benefit claimant's treating psychologist in concluding that claimant retained sufficient residual functional capacity to work; error was not harmless as ALJ entirely failed to address primary treating source's presumptively supportable opinion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bridgewater, No. 05-6950,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's imposition of statutory maximum 120-month sentence, followed by lifetime supervised release, upon defendant's guilty plea to possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252(a)(4)(B), was reasonable; record contained sufficiently clear consideration of factors set out in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), including protection of children.
|
|||||
| United States v. Kerrent, No. 05-6849,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reasonableness was the appellate standard of review, not the standard by which district courts imposed sentences, the latter of which required district courts to apply the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors and impose a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing in § 3553(a)(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
