 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alexander v. Bosch Auto. Sys., Case No. 05-6010,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Any restitutionary-type relief sought under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(3) would have ordered former employer to pay funds to reimburse former employees for value of plant closure benefits; such remedy did not seek "specifically identifiable funds," but rather sought to impose "personal liability" on employer by recovering some funds from assets.
|
|||||
| United States v. Roland, No. 06-3391,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No error occurred when jury was instructed to consider each count of unlawful drug possession and distribution separately because Sixth Circuit had rejected proposition that because predisposition to commit crime had to be determined prior to contact with government actors, any subsequent criminal action had to be attributed to government pressure.
|
|||||
| Valentine v. United States, Nos. 04-2116; 05-1877,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 14, 2007, Decided , May 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of § 2255 motion was affirmed on all grounds except that defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his trial counsel thwarted his efforts to accept a plea bargain and thus rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, however, defendant and co-defendant's other claims were denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
