 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Amy S. v. Danbury Local Sch. Dist., No. 05-3653,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parents' action alleging violation of minor child's rights under IDEA was properly denied because mediation agreements signed by the parents precluded review of their claims and there was no breach of the agreements by defendants because there was only a restriction of the tutor transporting the child in the car, tutoring as still available.
|
|||||
| Burch v. USDA, No. 04-3640,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service properly disqualified a store from participation in the federal food stamp program where there was sufficient evidence that the store's personnel redeemed food stamp benefits for cash and non-food items, in violation of 7 U.S.C.S. § 2021(b)(3)(B) and 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(e)(1)(i).
|
|||||
| Ilias v. Gonzales, No. 05-3205,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An IJ did not abuse her discretion when she denied an alien's motion to reopen her removal proceedings where the alien's mere expectation that the immigration court was going to grant her father's request to consolidate his and the alien's cases was insufficient to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(b)(5)(C).
|
|||||
| Kessler v. Visteon Corp., No. 04-2056,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided , March 31, 2006, Filed ** This decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on March 31, 2006. On April 27, 2006, the court designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because husband had raise a genuine issue of material fact pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 as to whether the operation of a forklift in proximity to pedestrians on the loading dock was an open and obvious that presented special aspects of danger under Michigan law, reversal of summary judgment in favor of corporation was warranted.
|
|||||
| Kessler v. Visteon Corp., No. 04-2056,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) summary judgment was erroneously granted in favor of a property owner in a negligence suit because there was a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the operation of a forklift in proximity to pedestrians in the owner's facility was an open and obvious activity that presented special aspects of danger under state law.
|
|||||
| Nawrocki v. United Methodist Ret. Cmtys., No. 05-1058,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of employer against employee's FMLA claim was affirmed. The timeliness of employee's original medical certification was not in dispute; however, the original FMLA form did not show that the employee was entitled to FMLA leave. Thus, the employer was justified in denying the claim and employee was not denied FMLA rights.
|
|||||
| Pough v. United States, No. 04-3863,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided , March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appointed counsel did not render constitutionally ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment where even if defense counsel misunderstood his role and should not have adapted his performance to the wishes of his client, counsel's conduct neither prejudiced defendant nor impugned the appellate process.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Cohen, No. 05-5072,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgment finding that women who were evicted from a shelter where they lived did not have a protected interest under the Kentucky Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and could not recover damages from the officers in a suit they filed under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983.
|
|||||
| United States v. Frankovich, No. 04-1707,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 60-month sentence of imprisonment for violating 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii) was affirmed since whether the court considered him to be a category III offender subject to a range of 30-37 months or a category IV offender subject to a range of 37-46 months was irrelevant; the statute provided for a 60-month mandatory minimum sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hochschild, No. 05-3159,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, March 31, 2006, Decided , March 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A3.1 was most applicable Guideline, where attempting particular act would have resulted in application of one of guidelines rather than other, then travel-with-intent to commit same act should result in application of that guideline. Appellate court agreed with district court's application of Guidelines.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
