 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harvey v. Jones, No. 04-2487,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Michigan inmate who was convicted of second-degree murder did not establish entitlement to equitable tolling of statute of limitations for habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1); claim of error in trial court's self-defense jury instruction did not constitute "new evidence" of innocence because it was based on legal, not factual, innocence.
|
|||||
| Joy & Middlebelt Sunoco v. Fusion Oil, No. 05-1563,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order that held oil company in contempt of preliminary injunction was not appealable under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291, as order was civil contempt order where it granted plaintiffs compensatory damages and imposed future payments on company commensurate with estimated future damages. In Sixth Circuit, civil contempt order was not final order under § 1291.
|
|||||
| Buchanan v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 05-3380,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where disability plan provided benefits only if claimant could not engaged in any gainful activity for which the claimant was or could become reasonably fitted, and two independent medical examiners opined that claimant could perform meaningful work, ERISA plan administrator's decision to terminate benefits was not arbitrary and capricious.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. City of Detroit, No. 04-1817,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Decided , May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed tenant's § 1983 action against housing commission seeking damages for child's lead poisoning; Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 4821 et seq., United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1437 et seq., and their regulations did not create individual federal rights enforceable under § 1983.
|
|||||
| Nazarko v. Gonzales, No. 05-3082,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported IJ's conclusion that Albanian asylum applicants were not persecuted based on political opinion for purposes of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158; IJ properly relied on country conditions report, which stated that Albanians were not mistreated on political grounds, and properly found that testimony was inconsistent and not credible.
|
|||||
| Ogle v. Hocker, No. 05-1508,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's defamation claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291 because the district court's order failed to dispose of plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
|
|||||
| United States v. Doe, No. 03-2562,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To extent defendant's motion to strike the government's notice of intention to seek the death penalty was premised on ground that 26 days between filing of death notice and proposed trial date did not provide reasonable notice under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3593(a), the motion was moot where the proposed trial date had already passed when he filed the motion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Isaiah, No. 04-4343,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Pickett, No. 05-1651,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in holding, under the Pluta factors, that defendant lacked a sufficient reason for withdrawing his plea. His withdrawal motion did not assert or maintain his innocence, and on multiple occasions prior to entering his original plea, he affirmed he understood his rights and was entering plea voluntarily.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
