 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cherokee Forest Voices v. United States Forest Serv., No. 05-6570,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action by environmental groups challenging two logging projects in Cherokee National Forest, district court erred in concluding that 16 U.S.C.S. § 1604(i) allowed USFS to determine whether to revise projects even when those projects were inconsistent with revised Forest Plan. Claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 4332, however, was properly dismissed.
|
|||||
| Crooks v. Comm'r, No. 05-1744,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 25, 2006* , Filed* This order was originally issued as an "unpublished order" filed on May 25, 2006. On June 27, 2006, the court designated the order as one recommended for full-text publication.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tax court properly concluded that taxpayers were not eligible to take depreciation deduction under 26 U.S.C.S. § 167 or to take a disabled access credit under 26 U.S.C.S. § 44. The taxpayers did not actually own phones that were subject of both deduction and credit. They were ineligible for credit because they were not required to comply with ADA.
|
|||||
| Smiljanich v. GMC, Nos. 05-1225/1226,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment on the employee's ERISA claim that the administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously was reversed; there was an inconsistency in the documents describing the company's "bridging" policy as it applied to the employee, but the administrator's resolution of that inconsistency was reasonable and thus entitled to deference.
|
|||||
| United States v. Currie, No. 05-5718,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 120 month sentence for a felon-in-possession charge, 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g), was affirmed where the sentencing court understood the advisory nature of the guidelines, acknowledged that defendant's record since his first sentencing hearing was admirable, but also recognized his long history of criminal history and the seriousness of the offense.
|
|||||
| United States v. Porter, No. 05-6121,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for violations of 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and 18 U.S.C.S. § 2, was affirmed as reasonable following his second resentencing because it was within the USSG and, without expressly reciting the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, the district court gave consideration to a number of the statutory factors.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
