 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Golden v. Communications Workers of Am., No. 05-6083,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed a summary disposition in favor of a union on a member's claim under 29 U.S.C.S. § 185 for breach of the duty of fair representation; the employer did not breach the CBA, and the union's explanations for not going further in the grievance process were rational, and the member failed to establish invidious discrimination.
|
|||||
| Kelly v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., No. 05-3830,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Decided , May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Creditor and law firm were not entitled to interlocutory appeal under collateral order doctrine of order denying absolute witness and advocacy immunity defense in debtors' action under FDCPA and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act; no substantial public interest would be imperiled by delaying appeal until entry of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291 final order.
|
|||||
| Power & Tel. Supply Co. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., No. 05-5966,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Decided , May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because telephone company had not demonstrated that banks owed it a legal duty to advise it on the appropriateness of the swap transactions distinct from agency and breach of fiduciary duty claims, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 to the banks on the company's professional negligence claim.
|
|||||
| Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Franklin, No. 04-6324,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Height and size restrictions burdened only large signs, those that were most likely to interfere with aesthetic or traffic safety concerns, and did not limit other forms of speech; therefore, a city's ordinance was constitutional under the First Amendment because it was not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government's interest.
|
|||||
| Quang Ly Tran v. Gonzales, Nos. 04-3800; 05-3734,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Decided , May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because BIA review under an incorrect standard of review implicated an alien's due process rights, the court concluded that remand to the BIA was appropriate for its consideration of his CAT claim under the correct standard of review and burden of proof.
|
|||||
| Reznick v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 05-1590,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because district court found that victim of bipolar disorder could receive care consistent with disabling bipolar disorder but still not be capable of performing duties of her profession, appellate court found that the interpretation of the insurance policy was correct and did not effect a forfeiture of the insured's benefits as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| Thacker v. Lawrence County, No. 05-3652,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment to Lawrence County and two sheriff's deputies on the arrestee's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claims was affirmed as the arrestee failed to demonstrate that the deputies lacked probable cause to arrest him under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2917.11(A)(1) where he continued to swear at the officers after he was asked to calm down.
|
|||||
| Wiedbrauk v. Lavigne, No. 04-1793,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the inmate's motion to amend his habeas petition because all but three of the inmate's nine newly asserted claims were barred from habeas review by an independent and adequate state ground and the three other claims did not relate back to the original petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
|
|||||
| Williamson v. Lear Corp., No. 05-1850,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted against employees in their hybrid action under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 185. The suit was untimely because it was filed more than six months after the cause of action accrued, and the statute of limitations was not tolled.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
