 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Thompson v. Aramark Sch. Support Servs., No. 05-2676,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 19, 2007, Decided , June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court concluded that the evidence established a prima facie case under the Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act, MCL § 15.362, and that the question of whether the employer acted on the basis of a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason in the discharge was a disputed question of fact that precluded summary judgment.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dotson, No. 06-5732,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied motion to suppress evidence of firearm and ammunition found in defendant's glove box in defendant's trial for violations of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(g), (j), 924(k); warrantless search was lawful as incident to co-defendant passenger's arrest for passing a bad check. Co-defendant was "recent occupant" of defendant's car.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pettie, No. 06-3458,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's imposition of a 77-month sentence for defendant's violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) was procedurally reasonable; grounds for sentence were adequately articulated. Although defendant cared for his parents, the district court was not required to explicitly discuss the impact that the sentence would have on defendant's parents.
|
|||||
| Williams v. McLemore, No. 05-2678,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prisoner failed to show that the employees and guards were subjectively aware of the prisoner's alleged threat of harm, but there were sufficient facts to support a finding that the warden acted unreasonably in returning the prisoner to the correctional facility without investigating the prisoner's claims that he would be harmed.
|
|||||
| Wogoman v. Abramajtys, No. 05-2296,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the case on which a state prisoner's 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition was denied was overruled, his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion was properly denied because Rule 60(b)(5) did not apply when a later precedent overturned a rule that was relied upon by a prior case, and the change regarding time limitations was insufficient to invoke Rule 60(b)(6).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
