 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bridgeport Music v. Universal-Mca Music Publ., Nos. 05-5719 / 05-5720 / 05-5724 / 05-5726 / 05-5728 / 05-5729 / 05-5730 / 05-5731 / 05-5732 / 05-5733 / 05-5734 / 05-6283 / 05-6284 / 05-6285 / 05-6286 / 05-6287 / 05-6288 / 05-6289 / 05-6290 / 05-6291,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Decided , March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a district court failed to give any reasons for not imposing the cost of defendants' attorneys fees on copyright owners after they voluntarily dismissed the infringement claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), the case was remanded for a more detailed order specifically addressing defendants' request for reasonable terms and conditions.
|
|||||
| Lawrence v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., No. 05-6895,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Welder, who was injured by exposure to toxic chemicals while working at a company's facility, introduced sufficient medical evidence to prove that his injuries were permanent because his physician testified that the chemicals had caused injuries, that injuries were permanent, and that welder was likely to suffer future damages.
|
|||||
| Leffman v. Sprint Corp., No. 06-3211,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Decided , March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: All non-credited leave was excluded from an employer's seniority calculations, and thus the effects of the employer's past characterizations (whether justifiable or not) of leaves of absence as non-credited were now felt equally by men and women and by those with and without children.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Eby, No. 05-1203,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Decided , March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Success in inmate's § 1983 claim that alleged guard retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights would not necessarily have affected duration of his sentence because prison officials would have retained discretion regarding whether to grant inmate parole. Accordingly, the habeas exception did not bar the inmate's § 1983 claim.
|
|||||
| United States v. Safa, 06-1187,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court upheld defendant's conviction for making a false declaration before a grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1623 because district court did not admit an improper lay opinion involving a legal conclusion under Fed. R. Evid. 704; district court properly forbade witness from explaining whether defendant's grand jury testimony was "material."
|
|||||
| United States v. Safa, No. 06-1187,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Decided , March 30, 2007, * Filed * This decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on March 30, 2007. The court has now designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1623 and the imposition of a prison sentence were affirmed in part, because testimony from a U.S. attorney concerning the scope of the grand jury testimony was properly admitted and did not address the ultimate issue of materiality. Sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553 were properly addressed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
