 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Caremark, Inc. v. Goetz, No. 05-6903,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2007, Decided , March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396a(a)(25)(I) established that the card presentation and timely filing restrictions were impermissible grounds on which to deny reimbursement to a state Medicaid agency like the agency in the action. District court did not err in holding that Tennessee Medicaid beneficiary's assignment of rights to agency occurred at point-of-sale.
|
|||||
| LIAC, Inc. v. Founders Ins. Co., No. 06-1196,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an agreement between a broker and underwriter concerning no-fault auto policies soured, the broker's fraudulent inducement claim was properly dismissed as it did not question a merger clause and signed the contract; but a breach of contract claim was improperly dismissed as an issue existed regarding the good faith and fair dealing covenant.
|
|||||
| Ontha v. Rutherford County, No. 05-6556,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in denying qualified immunity to a deputy for the death of a suspect after he was struck by a police car because it was undisputed that the deputy was not driving the car and he and the driver did not discuss any possible course of action; he was not entitled to qualified immunity for force used after suspect was neutralized.
|
|||||
| Ozier v. RTM Enters. of Ga., Inc., Case No. 05-2027,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee claimed race and sex discrimination under 42 U.S.C.S. 1981 and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the employer was properly granted summary judgment as a manager's comment that he would have to "kiss a little butt" to be promoted was not direct evidence of discrimination, and he did not show that was qualified for promotion.
|
|||||
| Boykin v. Van Buren Twp., No. 06-1359,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A store security guard's deposition testimony and an in-store surveillance tape undermined the conclusion that the guard had probable cause to think an arrestee had committed retail theft because the tape showed the arrestee facing and making eye contact with a cashier before leaving the store. Dismissal of state law claims was reversed.
|
|||||
| Dixon v. Gonzales, No. 05-2216,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Decided , March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The FBI was entitled to summary judgment on a 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-3 retaliation claim because a former agent had not proffered sufficient evidence to raise the inference that his former supervisor's negative recommendation was the cause of the denial of his reinstatement. He had accused his former supervisor of racial animus 10 years earlier.
|
|||||
| Nelson v. Christian Bros. Univ., Case No. 05-5444,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in instructing jury on associate professor's Title IX retaliation claim because core issue was whether defendants retaliated by not promoting associate professor because of presentation that she gave and instruction in question did not permit jury to deliberate under incorrect standard affecting that issue.
|
|||||
| Brandon v. Stone, No. 06-5284,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where ground upon which district court granted relief was not fairly presented to the state courts by the inmate, writ of habeas corpus was vacated and the issue was remanded to district court with instructions that district court determine whether inmate could demonstrate that his failure to exhaust was excusable and, if not, to dismiss petition.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bolden, No. 05-5407,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Decided , March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court properly enhanced defendant's offense level by six levels because a firearm was "otherwise used" during the robbery and not merely brandished. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2) provided for such an enhancement. The district court also properly applied the § 2B3.1(b)(7) enhancement for the amount of loss.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
