 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barbourville Nursing Home v. United States HHS, No. 05-3421,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposition of civil monetary penalties under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1395i-3(h)(2)(B)(ii) by the DHHS against a nursing facility, a Medicare participant, was affirmed because substantial evidence supported the finding that the facility's noncompliance with standards of care was so severe that it warranted the immediate jeopardy level of severity.
|
|||||
| Carter v. Mitchell, No. 99-3207,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Decided , April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Absent actual, probative evidence relating to inmate's mental health that trial counsel missed, there could be no prejudice and therefore no ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland. Inmate offered no evidence to show, under facts of his case, that trial counsel's decision not to retain different specialist was objectively unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Donkers v. Simon, No. 05-1013,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a court system and two judges had recused themselves from hearing plaintiff's state court action after the district court had granted their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court did not need to reach plaintiff's challenges on appeal based on the fact that there was no live case or controversy.
|
|||||
| Edgar v. JAC Prods., No. 05-1193,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Decided , April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's entitlement claim, 29 U.S.C.S. § 2615, failed, where employer fired her eight days before a psychiatrist concluded the employee could not return to work within the statutory-leave period. The objective inquiry required in entitlement cases did not preclude the use of evidence acquired by the employer after the termination decision.
|
|||||
| Minges Creek, L.L.C. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., No. 05-1313,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Decided , April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the scope of an insurer's duty to an additional insured was limited by the term premises, and the term premises in the policy was defined by the parties' lease, the scope of the insurer's obligation was limited to the inside of the card shop, and the slip and fall accident that occurred outside the shop was not covered under the policy.
|
|||||
| OPW Fueling Components v. NLRB, Nos. 04-2563; 05-1083,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Decided , April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the appellate court determined that the employee's conduct was a protected activity under 29 U.S.C.S. § 157, the employer had terminated the employee based on an improper motivation, and the union was threatened by the company in violation of 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 158(a)(1),(3), and (4), the court affirmed the NLRB's decision.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hython, No. 05-3008,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 6, 2006, Decided , April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court found that the good faith exception could not be applied to a search because a well-trained officer could not have reasonably relied on the affidavit, given that it was based on one undated, acontextual controlled buy. Therefore, appellate court reversed district court's order that denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
