 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. Earthboard Sports USA, Inc., No. 05-6317,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment on state blue sky law on the grounds it was preempted was reversed because a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the shares sold to the investor were "covered securities" that warranted National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 preemption from application of the state's registration requirement.
|
|||||
| Crosby v. Rohm & Haas Co., No. 06-5347,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for decedent's employer was proper in life insurance beneficiary's action under 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B), (c)(1) of ERISA; incorrect enrollment worksheet did not trump terms in booklet that summarized amended plan, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1022. Good faith reply to information request precluded penalties under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(c)(1).
|
|||||
| DynCorp, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 05-1138; 05-1268; 05-1324,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the NLRB's findings that an employer violated 29 U.S.C.S. § 158(a)(1) through its pre-union election behavior, including prohibiting use of its bulletin board for pro-union materials, offering non-union buttons to employees, and interrogating them regarding their level of involvement in, or support for, the campaign.
|
|||||
| In re Acosta, No. 06-6032,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for authorization of second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 was denied because prisoner had not raised a challenge that went to the validity of his waiver and the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N) and inform the prisoner of, and determined that the prisoner, understood the terms of the waiver provision.
|
|||||
| J.B. Labs., Inc. v. Zee Med., Inc., No. 06-1561,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An indemnification controversy that once existed between the parties no longer existed where the parties informed the court that a products liability lawsuit regarding the production and distribution of a nonprescription hay fever and sinus medication had been resolved. The appellate court dismissed the case and appeal as moot.
|
|||||
| Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Ctr., P.C., No. 05-1518,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided , March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court abused discretion in admitting settlement offer in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 408 in age discrimination action under 29 U.S.C.S. § 623 of ADEA and Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202; admitting settlement to disprove mitigation violated Fed. R. Evid. 408. Record demonstrated prejudice to employer notwithstanding limiting instruction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bowers, No. 05-6780,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rather than telling the district court to "begin anew" in considering the validity of defendant's conviction and sentence, the United States Supreme Court remanded the case for the exclusive purpose of resentencing him. Because of this limited remand, the appellate court would not hear the challenges on non-sentencing issues.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
