 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harris v. Olszewski, No. 04-2479, No. 05-1047,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided , March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court erred in holding that a single-source contract for incontinence products for the state's Medicaid recipients violated Medicaid's freedom-of-choice provision, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396a(a)(23)(A), because the state's interpretation that incontinence products were excluded from the provision as medical devices was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 05-5462,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed because there was probable cause for the arrest, defendant lacked standing to challenge the warrantless entry into his sometimes girlfriend's house, and his inculpatory statement was voluntary. His 86-month term of imprisonment was also found to be reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Moye, No. 03-4109,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the district court had treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory and defendant had been sentenced to 188 months and 60 months to be served consecutively, the appellate court vacated the sentence that was levied after Booker had been decided and remanded for resentencing.
|
|||||
| Univ. Hosps. v. S. Lorain Merchs. Ass'n Health & Welfare Benefit Plan & Trust, No. 04-4067,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 21, 2006, Decided , March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where district court remanded an ERISA case to the an association's health and welfare benefit plan administrator after the association failed to provide the hospital with adequate opportunity for review, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1133, the court should have conducted the review of the case itself and permitted the hospital to introduce additional evidence.
|
|||||
| Solvay Pharms., Inc. v. Duramed Pharms., Inc., No. 04-4381,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitrators did not exceed their powers by awarding damages to the corporation in the dispute because the exclusive remedy/no damages provision of the co-promotion agreement did not reach the relevant provisions of the letter agreement. Thus, the district court correctly enforced the award under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.S. § 1 et seq.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
