 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Apseloff v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 06-4200,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee's instant and former suits all involved the same transaction--namely, his termination--and res judicata prevented him from litigating piecemeal different causes of action arising out of the transaction. The fact that the instant suit involved a different cause of action, alleged injury, and factual issues did not change the result.
|
|||||
| Ka v. Gonzales, No. 06-3500,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution for asylum relief or withholding of removal where low-ranking members, such as the alien, of the political party of which the alien was a member were not at risk of persecution in Senegal. Alien also did not show that torture was in any way prevalent in Senegal for purposes of CAT.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hunt, No. 06-5690,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 7, 2007, Decided , June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in determining that defendant was responsible for delivering the cocaine found in his apartment and thus U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual § 2D1.8(a)(2) did not apply after defendant had pled guilty to fraudulent use of a social security number and establishment of a controlled substances distribution operation.
|
|||||
| Barrett v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Barrett), No. 06-3519,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 8, 2007, Decided , June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where debtor testified credibly about medical history, current health, employment history, and his ability to perform work functions, and that testimony was corroborated in part by a letter from the debtor's treating physician and tax records, debtor had offered proof sufficient to support finding of undue hardship pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 523.
|
|||||
| United States v. Powell, No. 06-6004,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea was proper under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 where: (1) defendant's forgery claim was without merit as she had signed the documents in open court; (2) she did not claim that she was innocent, but only objected to the amount of loss; and (3) she was an intelligent, repeat offender with criminal experience.
|
|||||
| Wisecarver v. Moore, No. 06-6046,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 8, 2007, Decided , June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although majority of plaintiffs' claims dealt with disturbing decedent's estate, which had already been probated, and those claims were within purview of probate exception, two claims did not fall within exception: accounting of assets received during last two years of decedent's life, and monetary judgment on those assets.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
