 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Coy/Superior Team v. BNFL, Inc., Nos. 04-6001, 04-6087,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under 42 U.S.C.S. § 9607(e) the parties lawfully transferred liability for the asbestos contained in condensers to the subcontractor through the parties subcontract agreement; therefore, the contractor was not responsible for the asbestos. District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a third amended complaint.
|
|||||
| Gresh v. Waste Servs. of Am., Inc., No. 05-5778,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though district court orders denying claimant's discovery motions were affirmed as not being an abuse of discretion, the district court erred by granting a defense summary judgment without considering and ruling upon claimant's pending motion for leave to amend complaint, and resulting summary judgment was thereupon vacated for abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Beasley, No. 04-6468,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2006, Decided , April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Sixth Circuit had held that district court did not violate U.S. Const. amend. VI by determining fact and nature of defendant's prior convictions and using those finding to impose increased sentence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e), appellate court rejected defendant's challenge to procedure in deciding to sentence him as armed career criminal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
