 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Caradon Doors & Windows, Inc. v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (In re Eagle-Picher Indus.), No. 04-3747,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided , May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Chapter 11 debtor's 1996 reorganization plan allowed for administrative expenses that represented liabilities that were incurred in ordinary course of business, manufacturer who had been named defendant in patent infringement action along with debtor was allowed to state claim that arose from action's settlement under 11 U.S.C.S. § 503.
|
|||||
| Muka v. Gonzales, No. 04-4422,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for review of a denial of asylum and related relief was denied because several internal and external inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony led the court to find the applicant had not demonstrated that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude the requisite fear of persecution existed.
|
|||||
| NLRB v. Crossroads Elec., Inc., No. 05-1395,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was determined that company and newly formed corporation engaged in same type of work, court granted NLRB's decision that found that company and corporation were alter egos, and corporation was in violation of 29 U.S.C.S. § 158(a)(5) by failing to comply with a collective bargaining agreement between a union and the contracting company.
|
|||||
| Tres Galanes Corp. v. Cordoba, No. 05-1461,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication of quiet title claim was properly granted as, based upon state court's prior decision, defendants were estopped from claiming an interest in property under a development agreement, and individual lacked authority to provide release of reverter interest, under Detroit City, Mich., Code art. 5, § 18-5-5(a).
|
|||||
| Ujkaj v. Gonzales, No. 05-3529,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While there may have been an illegal search of the petitioners' home immediately after the husband of the family abandoned his position with the Albanian Secret Service Agency, there was no evidence to suggest this was anything other than an isolated occurrence. Substantial evidence supported denial of asylum.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brown, No. 05-3430,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence without determining and preserving in the record the actual words used to give defendant a Miranda warning; it was the substance, not the precise wording, of the warning that determined whether the warning was adequate.
|
|||||
| Wade v. Diamant Boart, Inc., No. 05-3916,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although district court properly concluded that a saw operator's claim against the saw manufacturer for failure to warn failed as a matter of law for lack of evidence of proximate cause, it erred in holding that the operator's failure to read and heed warning precluded him from being able to demonstrate proximate cause on his design defect claim.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
