 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alexandrov v. Gonzales, No. 04-4458,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Decided , April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because two memoranda were the sole pieces of evidence for the government, and the sole factor the immigration court relied upon in making its frivolous application determination, the asylee was clearly prejudiced by their admission. The court also found the adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Gormley v. Precision Extrusions, Inc., No. 05-1326,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where discovery had closed long before a former employee sought leave to amend his complaint a fourth time in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, and the case was fully briefed on cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the former employee leave to amend.
|
|||||
| Hardy v. Vieta, No. 05-1024,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner had alleged an injury that was "sufficiently serious" to make out an Eighth Amendment violation. The officer did not push the steel door on the prisoner during the course of a prison security measure and a witness testified that upon seeing the prisoner, the officer uttered words indicating wantonness and premeditation.
|
|||||
| Lett v. Sahenk, Nos. 05-3452/3453,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctor's summary judgment motion was properly granted in patient's § 1983 action, which alleged doctor violated her substantive due process rights by failing to obtain her informed consent before performing a non-therapeutic biopsy for medical research study, where patient failed to allege or produce evidence of conduct that shocked the conscience.
|
|||||
| Nair v. Oakland County Community Mental Health Auth., No. 05-1177,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Decided , April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action claiming First Amendment retaliation under § 1983 and a violation of Michigan's Whistleblowers' Statute, the court had discretion to address the sovereign immunity defense and the merits of the case in whichever order it preferred because employer raised sovereign immunity as an "alternative" ground for rejecting the employee's claims.
|
|||||
| Puertas v. Overton, No. 04-2405,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's argument that the prosecution violated his duty under U.S. Const. amend. XIV and Brady when it failed to provide him with a state police report lacked merit. State court could reasonably have held that the inmate either knew the substance of the report or knew enough to have discovered information based upon further inquiry.
|
|||||
| United States v. McAlister, Nos. 04-6476, 05-5004, 05-5005,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' sentences imposed under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2D1.11(d) and 2D1.1 application n. 10 were affirmed because they failed to show that the Sentencing Commission deviated from the congressional mandate to when it determined the pseudoephedrine-to-methamphetamine equivalency ratio.
|
|||||
| United States v. Simmons, No. 04-6454,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied because the officers had reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop and based on the maps and photographs of the crime scene it was possible that the officers were able to see defendant and the other individuals trespass on the housing project property.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
