 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ctr. Constr. Co. v. NLRB, Nos. 05-2259/05-2425/05-2326,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Decided , April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: NLRB's petition to enforce its order was granted except with regard to its determination that company's statement about loss of sheet metal jobs was not an unfair labor practice. Firing for union activity was a "hallmark" violation, the plumber was reinstated with backpay, and company was ordered to recognize and bargain with the union.
|
|||||
| Halfacre v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., No. 05-6619,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court reversed district court's grant of summary judgment to an employer on an employee's claim of retaliation under 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-3(a) because a performance evaluation that was lower than the employee had received in the past and lower than the employee believed was warranted could have been considered a materially adverse employment action.
|
|||||
| Okoro v. Hemingway, No. 06-1816,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Decided , April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Precedent on which district court relied in dismissing inmate's complaint against officials for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was mistaken interpretation of PLRA, as U.S. Supreme Court later held that inmates did not have to expressly plead exhaustion in complaints; thus, inmate was entitled to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).
|
|||||
| Riley v. Berghuis, No. 05-2559,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Decided , April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in granting § 2254 habeas relief upon a finding that state court unreasonably applied Strickland; prejudice prong was not satisfied because prisoner did not show reasonable probability that motion for directed verdict of acquittal would have been granted. Evidence established elements of aiding and abetting felony murder.
|
|||||
| Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 05-2100,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Decided , April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly found that insurer's determination that LTD claimant was not disabled on date he left job was arbitrary and capricious and violated 29 U.S.C.S. § 1104(a)(1) of ERISA; claimant was not diagnosed with HSV-Encephalitis until six weeks after employment ended, but evidence established cognitive deterioration during employment.
|
|||||
| Scott v. Metro. Health Corp., No. 05-1948, No. 05-2642, No. 06-1122, No. 06-1652,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer was entitled to summary judgment because its stated reasons for the termination (including that the employee had wrongly altered corporate records) were not pretexts for retaliation in violation of 31 U.S.C.S. § 3730(h) of the False Claims Act. Recusal was not required under either 28 U.S.C.S. § 144 or § 455.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wright, No. 06-5164,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied motion to suppress evidence and statements in trial for violations of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e); stop of vehicle was justified by officer's belief that defendant received stolen rifle, frisk was justified by belief that defendant was armed and dangerous, and defendant was not "in custody" for Miranda purposes.
|
|||||
| United States v. Byrd, No. 06-5370,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly insured that a sufficient factual basis, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3), supported defendant's plea of guilty to mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1341 because defendant stipulated to the factual basis alleged by the prosecutor and admitted the allegations set forth in the indictment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hensel, No. 04-4325,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court lacked jurisdiction over defendant's appeal, in light of Booker, of 70-month sentence imposed upon guilty plea to violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1); defendant's plea agreement contained express waiver of right to appeal, and plea colloquy supported a finding that defendant waived his appeal rights knowingly and voluntarily.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
