 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alpert v. United States, No. 06-3415,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 23, 2007, Decided , March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellants had failed to present any admissible evidence that debts of the corporation were discharged in 1992, 1993, or 1994, and the government was entitled to summary judgment. In order for cancellation of debt income to occur under 26 U.S.C.S. § 61(a)(12), the taxpayer had to be discharged from the liability.
|
|||||
| Baldwin v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 05-4650,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of plan administrator in an ERISA action was affirmed because the plan administrator engaged in a deliberative, principled reasoning process when it denied the claim for long-term disability benefits beyond the initial 36-month period provided under the employer's welfare benefits plan.
|
|||||
| Cunningham v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 06-5520,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of former employer was affirmed because none of the provisions regarding medical insurance benefits for retirees included language that could be interpreted to vest those benefits for life and included a provision that stated that the employees acknowledged that benefits were subject to modification.
|
|||||
| Ferguson v. Unicoi County, CASE NO. 05-6648,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the ground that exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry. Exigent circumstances justifying the search existed because officers had objectively reasonable belief that dangerous fugitive was in dwelling and that occupants might have been under duress and in danger.
|
|||||
| United States v. Trejo-Martinez, No. 05-6078,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 23, 2007, Decided , March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of Booker, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3742(a) provided the necessary jurisdiction for the court's review of defendant's sentence. Accordingly, the court rejected the government's argument that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal, and the court found that the sentence imposed for violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326 was reasonable.
|
|||||
| Dritarja v. Gonzales, No. 06-3599,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although few of the inconsistencies in an alien's testimony were profound when taken alone, in light of their cumulative effect, the court could not say that it was compelled to reach a contrary conclusion regarding her credibility as required by 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B); during her testimony, she appeared to be reciting a learned script.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cook, No. 05-2731,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in imposing 120-month sentence following defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g); judicial fact-finding that resulted in application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), 2D1.1(b)(1) did not violate U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. Statutory maximum would have been imposed regardless of enhancement.
|
|||||
| Patton v. Budd Co., No. 06-3223,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's hybrid action under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 185, failed because employer did not violate the CBA because the employee received a discharge hearing, which he failed to attend and under the CBA the employer could require training aimed at improvement of its manufacturing process.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
