 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bagsby v. Gehres, No. 05-1384,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in granting summary judgment for former wife, her family, and her attorneys in former husband's action for conversion; genuine issues remained as to whether Cal. Corp. Code § 16202 law practice partnership agreement existed between the former spouses and whether wife's right to withdraw funds from accounts was restricted.
|
|||||
| Baptist Physician Hosp. Org., Inc. v. Humana Military Healthcare Servs., No. 06-5364,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided , March 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hospital's receipt of both capital payments and inpatient reimbursement under the stop loss provisions was consistent with the apparent intent of the regulators to appropriately reimburse more costly patient care. The parties did not validly modify the agreement based on the hospital's application for and acceptance of capital payments.
|
|||||
| Cook v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 06-5429,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Decided , March 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Complaint challenging a Social Security benefits decision was properly dismissed as untimely because although claimant filed one day late, he was not entitled to equitable tolling because he had actual notice of the filing requirements, failed to rebut the presumption that the notice arrive within five days of its issuance, and offered no excuse.
|
|||||
| Kramer v. Wilkinson, No. 05-4363,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court reversed district court's sua sponte dismissal of prisoner's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust remedies under PLRA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e et seq. because, pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, failure to exhaust was affirmative defense that could serve as basis for dismissal only if raised and proven by defendants.
|
|||||
| Lichtefeld v. Mactec Eng'g & Consulting, Inc., Case No. 05-5884,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former landlord sued his former tenant for allowing, or causing, disrepair to a building that caused it to sell for a lower price, the case was remanded on the issue of damages because the district court should have applied the "lesser-of" rule, limiting damages to the lesser of the cost of repair or the diminution in value of the building.
|
|||||
| United States v. Kennedy, No. 06-3029,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if a juror had slept through the jury instructions, defendant failed to show, or even allege, that such behavior had a prejudicial effect on his defense thus violating the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the jurors received a written copy of the instructions to review during deliberations, which cured any prejudice defendant may have suffered.
|
|||||
| United States v. McCurry, No. 06-5470, 06-5471,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's concurrent 70-month sentences for his counterfeiting and drug possession convictions per 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 471, 473, 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) were proper as a two-level U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement was proper; though he offered another reason for having a gun, he admitted that it was in the same room as drugs.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
