 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Acs v. Detroit Edison Co., No. 05-1042,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Decided , April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment of the district court in favor of the employer was affirmed because the employer met the FLSA's salary-basis exemption under 29 U.S.C.S. § 213(a)(1) and because a time-entry error that resulted in an initial payment by defendant to an employee of less than the predetermined weekly salary amount was not an unlawful docking or deduction.
|
|||||
| Filiaggi v. Bagley, No. 04-3513,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Decided , April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of habeas petition was affirmed because inmate was fully apprised of his right to a jury trial and understood the presumption of correctness that attached to the findings of the three-judge panel and state court's determination that inmate was competent to stand trial was not contrary to established federal law.
|
|||||
| Gojcaj v. Gonzales, No. 04-4322,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite some contradictory rulings in alien's separate removal proceedings, alien, who was minor when her mother applied for asylum, remained derivative beneficiary of mother's application even after alien turned 21 years of age (8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(b)(3)(B)). Pretermission of alien's separate application did not deny her due process.
|
|||||
| Indmar Prods. Co. v. Comm'r, No. 05-1573,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Decided , April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After analyzing 11 factor test enumerated in Roth Steel, and finding that eight of eleven factors favored debt over equity, appellate court found that Tax Court erred in disallowing interest deductions taxpayer claimed. Interest deductions were related to a number of advances made to taxpayer by its majority stockholders over several years.
|
|||||
| Kalaj-Pali v. Gonzales, Case No. 04-4247,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ's determination that aliens were not eligible for asylum was reversed because IJ found the alien "absolutely credible" and did not dispute that the incidents of violence and intimidation rose to the level of persecution; furthermore, there was a clear nexus between alien's political activities and the persecution that he and his family suffered.
|
|||||
| King v. Bobby, No. 04-3844,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sene v. Gonzales, Nos. 04-3794, 04-4115,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse discretion in denying Senegalese citizen's motions to reopen her asylum claim; the applicant's proffered "new" evidence was previously available, and her former counsel's performance was not so ineffective as to have impinged upon fundamental fairness of the asylum hearing for purposes of due process under U.S. Const. amend. V.
|
|||||
| Terminal Warehouse, Inc. v. CSX Transp., No. 05-3788,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence did not support warehouse company's claim that a transportation company provided false information to Surface Transportation Board (STB) when it sought permission, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.S. § 10502, to abandon a railway line, and STB did not err when it rejected warehouse company's request for order invalidating decision to abandon the line.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, No. 04-6069,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Decided , April 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the district court did commit Booker error when it resentenced defendant to 280 months' imprisonment for violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g) and 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e), because the sentence included a substantial discretionary upward departure, the Booker errors were harmless.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
