 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bessent v. Dyersburg State Cmty. College, No. 06-5305,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Community college did not violate former employee's right to free speech under First Amendment when it fired her because statements in question were not protected speech as they were made pursuant to her official duties; her due process rights were not violated by denial of name-clearing hearing because there was no stigma of immorality.
|
|||||
| Harper v. Amweg, 06-3548,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 case alleging arrest without probable cause, excessive force, and illegal search and seizure in violation of Fourth Amendment; reviewing court held that district court properly dismissed complaint and relied on reasons set forth by district court.
|
|||||
| Hood v. Keller, No. 05-4373,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A previous decision holding that a permit scheme on the statehouse grounds was unconstitutional with respect to individuals rendered an arrestee's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot, but the claims for damages and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988 were not moot.
|
|||||
| Humphrey v. Mabry, No. 05-4462,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 2, 2007, Decided , April 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although vehicle driver's § 1983 complaint alleged unconstitutionally intrusive seizure and use of force under U.S. Const. amend. IV, road block officers and helicopter officer were entitled to qualified immunity because reasonable mistakes were understandably committed in good faith while performing jobs in a potentially dangerous situation.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Flowers, No. 06-1363,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment for supervisors in employee's action alleging retaliation under 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1981, 1983 and under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act; employee's settlement agreement with employer, a Michigan agency, unambiguously released agency "and its agents" from all liability related to grievance.
|
|||||
| United States v. Burford, 05-6829,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed because the court properly considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors in reaching his sentencing decision such as defendant's extensive criminal history, the need to protect the public from defendant's seemingly endless string of criminal acts, and defendant's opportunity to receive extensive drug rehabilitation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ragland, No. 05-6732,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court refused to overturn defendant's sentence based on government's failure to notify him that it would seek upward departure under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) because defendant had some prior notice based on his own conduct, he was given an opportunity to present evidence, and he failed to show that he suffered any prejudice.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
