 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alley v. Bell, Nos. 05-6876, 06-5552,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court agreed with the district court's determination that death row inmate's claim that the inmate tried to file as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion was essentially a second or successive habeas petition, and it did not examine the merits of the underlying claims beyond the degree necessary to assess the nature of the claim.
|
|||||
| B&D Partners v. Pastis, No. 05-5954,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because failure to respond to motion for summary judgment or to request extension of time to file a response was inexcusable neglect, and source of the problems was lack of communication between clients' two lawyers, gross carelessness was insufficient basis for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) relief.
|
|||||
| Extendicare Health Servs. v. NLRB, Nos. 03-2626, 04-1141,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: NLRB erred in ordering health care center to participate in collective bargaining with union elected by floor nurses; substantial evidence did not support NLRB's determination that floor nurses were not "supervisors" within meaning of 29 U.S.C.S. § 152(11) of NLRA. Nurses directed work of nursing assistants and initiated disciplinary proceedings.
|
|||||
| Hagood v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, Case No. 05-5845,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kusens v. Pascal Co., Nos. 04-3570/3682,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided , May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's failure to rule on an alternative motion for new trial did not affect appellate jurisdiction; presumption of at-will employment did not relieve plaintiff from proving at-will status on his wrongful discharge public policy claim; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying him a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.
|
|||||
| Stephens v. Kettering Adventist Healthcare, No. 05-3750,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment for employer in action under 29 U.S.C.S. § 623(a)(1) of ADEA by nurse who was discharged for alleged mistreatment of infants in special care nursery; employer conducted adequate investigation into allegations of mistreatment, and employee failed to raise genuine issue with respect to pretext.
|
|||||
| Stutler v. T.K. Constructors, No. 04-6436,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided , May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiffs sought enforcement of state rights for alleged home defects, federal district court wrongly denied motion to stay pending arbitration using Sixth Circuit precedent, finding that arbitration cost too much. State law was consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, which reserved to state law defenses against arbitration enforcement.
|
|||||
| United States v. Coffee, No. 05-4232,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for conspiring to sell substandard, untested, and/or counterfeit aircraft parts that included 12 months of incarceration and three years of supervised release was affirmed as the district court considered the relevant factors of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) and properly articulated its reasoning.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gray, No. 05-5106,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun was affirmed where a reasonable fact-finder could credit the testimony of two police officers stating that they had received consent to search a home over that of the third-party who denied giving consent to search her home. There was no Fourth Amendment violation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
