|
| |
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.
|
| |
Federal Courts -
6th Circuit Court of Appeals - June 8 - June 9, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
Fortis Corporate Ins. v. Viken Ship Management, No. 05-3792,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 8, 2006, Decided , June 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: District court erred as a matter of law when it ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the owners because the third party charterer was Canadian since the owners derived the same benefit, and hence their contacts with the forum state are the same, regardless of whether they were working with an American or a Canadian company.
|
|
| |
|
| |
United States v. Certain Land Situated in the City of Detroit, No. 04-1052,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 8, 2006, Decided , June 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: District court properly looked to the Declaration of Taking Act, 40 U.S.C.S. § 258a (re-codified as 40 U.S.C.S. § 3114) in fixing the appropriate interest rate on the deficiency where while the company could have been better off had the money been tied to different indices, the adoption of the statutorily required rate was not clear error.
|
|
| |
Chao v. Akron Insulation & Supply, Inc., No. 05-3647,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Time spent clocking in, receiving assignments, assembling work crews, and loading trucks at the shop before going to the work site, as well as time spent waiting, was compensable under the FLSA because it was for the employer's benefit. Travel time between the shop and the work site was also compensable and could not be contracted away.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
