 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lundgren v. Mitchell, No. 02-3001,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided , March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's diligence in obtaining not just the constitutionally mandated single mental health expert, but two mental health experts, showed that he engaged in a reasonable investigation into the inmate's mental state at the time of the crimes, and therefore the inmate was properly denied 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 relief on the claim.
|
|||||
| Rinard v. Luoma, No. 05-1150,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided , March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed a prisoner's § 1983 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(a) where the prisoner had exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to only four of the eight defendant employees, and appellate court had ruled definitively that complaints that contained both exhausted and non-exhausted claims had to be dismissed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Giles, No. 05-5526,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence within the advisory guidelines range for being a felon in possession was reasonable because the district court considered vocational, educational, and health care goals and the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, including defendant's extensive violent record and escape efforts.
|
|||||
| United States v. Seventeen Firearms, No. 05-3048,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(d)(1) civil forfeiture case in which there had been a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(9), the appellate court declined to reach the merits of a husband and wife's argument that the forfeiture violated the Commerce Clause because it was raised for the first time on appeal.
|
|||||
| Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Dayton, Nos. 04-4326,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute regarding building relocation on landfill property, claim preclusion, the law of the case, and the mandate rule did not bar the district court from reconsidering on remand its prior relocation decision, because, inter alia, there was no final judgment regarding the first decision and the appellate court did not consider the issue.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
