 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cooper v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 06-5735,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Decided , May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious because independent file examiners' failed to consider the medical evidence in the claim file, disregarded their instructions to speak to the treating physicians, and then offered conclusory and unsupported statements that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of disability.
|
|||||
| Probus v. Charter Communs., LLC, No. 06-6188,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Matter was remanded to the district court for consideration of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332 and § 1441, and whether or not the matter should have been remanded, sua sponte, to the state court. District court did not have authority to grant summary judgment without considering jurisdiction first.
|
|||||
| Bauss v. Plymouth Twp. , Appeal No. 05-2277,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of township was affirmed because real estate developer lacked a protected property interest in the re-zoning of his property and the township provided the developer with adequate notice of the planning commission meeting that amended the future land use map. Therefore, the developer's due process rights were not violated.
|
|||||
| Equilon Enters. LLC v. 12 & Evergreen D&D Servs., Appeal No. 06-2024,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of partial summary judgment in favor of a gasoline/oil company was not made in error because the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision that the company's assignment of the retail sales agreements tot he wholesalers did not result in a "market withdrawal" under the brand covenant provision in the special warranty deed.
|
|||||
| Foley v. Parker, No. 04-5746,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2007, Decided , May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas petitioner contended that his counsel should have called family members and friends to testify during the capital sentencing phase of his trial, but failing to do so did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment where several of those witnesses mentioned the petitioner's penchant for violence.
|
|||||
| Garcia v. Andrews, No. 05-3856,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2007, Decided , May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While jurors should not have been discussing their subjective fear of reprisal, the potential harm to the habeas petitioner was too attenuated to warrant habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 in the absence of an extraneous source because one would have expected a vote of not guilty if the jurors were concerned for their personal safety.
|
|||||
| Lankford v. Radioshack Corp., No. 06-5814,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee failed to establish prima facie case of disability discrimination action under Kentucky Civil Rights Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 344.010-344.045 because merchandising was essential function of job as store manager. He did not present sufficient evidence to show he could fulfill merchandising duties with or without reasonable accommodation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
