 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ambrose v. Summit Polymers, Inc., No. 05-1048,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although employee did equal work and was paid less than most of her male coworkers, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for employer in employee's Equal Pay Act lawsuit; record compelled a finding that sex played no factor in the part in the difference between the employee's rate of pay and the rates at which male employees were paid.
|
|||||
| Leeds v. City of Muldraugh, No. 04-6495,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where business owners alleged that a city and officials violated RICO and their equal protection rights, their claims were properly dismissed because, inter alia, they failed to describe any specific acts of fraud or how they were treated differently; sanctions were warranted under Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C.S. § 1927.
|
|||||
| N'Diom v. Gonzales, No. 04-3742,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Decided , March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The decision of the BIA was vacated and the case was remanded to the BIA for further consideration in light of the opinion because neither the IJ nor the BIA provided a detailed explanation of its reasons for disbelieving the alien's testimony in support of his claim for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158.
|
|||||
| SHR Ltd. P'ship v. SWEPI LP, Case Nos. 04-2512, 04-2558,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: LP's claims were barred by res judicata under Michigan law because the LP was in privity with relevant prior litigants, and its claims satisfied both the same transaction and the same evidence test. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1447(d) barred appellate review of the district court's remand order based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cook, No. 04-2527,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellate court noted that no published case in circuit had held that two or more convictions were related for purposes of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 4B1.1.1(a) because they were functionally consolidated, district court did not err in finding that prior convictions were not related.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mackie, No. 05-1137,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 24-month sentence for violating supervised release was not unreasonable even though it was in excess of the Sentencing Guidelines range of 5 to 11 months because defendant required custodial care since he committed violations after he failed to continue his treatment for his mental illness and thus posed a danger to himself and others.
|
|||||
| United States v. Payne, No. 04-6119,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's drug and firearm convictions were affirmed, but his sentences were vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing because the weapon type used to enhance his sentence was 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c) was not charged in the indictment, and the district court applied the USSG as mandatory.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
