 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bah v. Gonzalez, No. 06-3704,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that petitioner did not show "changed circumstances" under 8 C.F.R. § 1003(c)(2)(ii) that would excuse her failure to file her motion to reopen within 90 days because petitioner did not allege change circumstances in Guinea, but instead put forth changed personal circumstances here in the United States.
|
|||||
| Dunham v. United States, Nos. 04-2567; 05-1897,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Decided , May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if counsel was ineffective for failing to raise Apprendi objection to sentence, prisoner did not establish prejudice required on ineffective assistance claim. Before Booker was decided, court held that Apprendi did not require USSG to be overturned; thus, Apprendi argument would not have led to different result in prisoner's pre-Booker case.
|
|||||
| K.E. v. Gonzales, No. 06-4231,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not err in affirming removal order because even assuming IJ erred by denying alien opportunity to obtain counsel, there was no prejudice because alien did not suggest outcome would have been different; hearing was fair because IJ properly developed record. Court lacked jurisdiction to consider factual argument related to motion to remand.
|
|||||
| Morris v. Barnhart, No. 06-4048,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Social security disability claimant was properly found to be not disabled since disregarding treating physicians' ultimate findings that claimant was disabled was not improper, there was no medical evidence that claimant required constant elevation of feet, and claimant's vision loss did not meet listed impairment of significant vision impairment.
|
|||||
| Potter v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 06-5988,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Social security claimant was properly found to be not disabled based on below-average mental ability, since inaccurate statement of claimant's formal schooling did not affect finding that claimant's non-education mental limitations did not preclude performance of simple tasks, and claimant did not meet listed impairment of mental retardation.
|
|||||
| Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, No. 05-6343,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Decided , May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though company had standing to challenge city's billboard height and size requirements, it had to separately establish an injury in fact under the ordinance's other provisions, since the company had not been injured or threatened with injury as a result of enforcement of the other provisions it lacked standing even under overbreadth doctrine.
|
|||||
| Thurman v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 06-1571,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Decided , May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of employee's state law claims as preempted under ERISA was reversed to the extent those claims were not related to the plan because employers who misrepresented certain benefits provided by ERISA-governed plans to prospective employees could not later use preemption as an end-run around liability for fraudulent or innocent.
|
|||||
| United States v. Marshall, No. 06-5375,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was stopped when an officer observed the fact that the license plate on the truck was expired, the court noted that driving with expired tags constituted probable cause to stop a vehicle, and therefore the district court correctly concluded that the stop complied with the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Maxwell, No. 05-6769,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following defendant's guilty plea under 21 U.S.C.S. § 846 to conspiring to sell cocaine taken from police evidence room, district court did not err in making factual finding as to drug quantity or in denying U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 acceptance of responsibility based on attempt to prevent house forfeiture through sham transaction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Simpson, No. 05-6357,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A defendant had failed to establish a prima facie case of vindictive prosecution and because his vindictive prosecution claim was not relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence, a district court was correct to quash the subpoena of an assistant United States attorney and to bar questions directly related to the vindictiveness allegation at trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
