 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Akridge v. Wilkinson, No. 05-3015,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment for prison officials in prison chaplain's action alleging U.S. Const. amend. I retaliation claim; Pickering test weighed against affording protection to chaplain's refusal to allow openly gay inmate to lead church choir because conduct undermined prison's legitimate anti-discrimination interest.
|
|||||
| Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Patel, No. 05-3010,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided , April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) motion for relief from default judgment in breach of contract action on basis that motion was not filed within "reasonable time" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); movant did not file motion until more than 11 months after district court acquired jurisdiction over him.
|
|||||
| Gillard v. Mitchell, Nos. 03-4261/4322,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided , April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where inmate's trial counsel did not labor under a conflict of interest, did not err in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing at trial concerning defense counsel's alleged conflict of interest, and was impartial and unbiased during the inmate's trial, court affirmed denial of remainder of the inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 writ of habeas corpus.
|
|||||
| Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO v. UPS Co., No. 05-5478,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided , April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the issue of whether the collective bargaining agreement between the union and an employer provided that an employee of the employer had to fill the position of a safety committee representative was a minor issue, and fell within the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.S. § 151 et seq., issue was within exclusive jurisdiction of adjustment board.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Rohm & Haas Co., No. 05-3472,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Decided , April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ohio district court erred in dismissing retired employees' action against employer under 29 U.S.C.S. § 185(a) of LMRA and 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a) of ERISA based on improper venue; venue was proper under LMRA because retirees consented to jurisdiction. Proper venue under ERISA could not be avoided by summary conclusion related to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404.
|
|||||
| United States v. Morrison, No. 05-1552,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where property owners were accused of improperly trenching, grading, or filling wetlands on their property, the United States had territorial jurisdiction over the owners' property for purposes of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.S. § 1344, because the wetlands were adjacent to a navigable river.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
