 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adair v. Charter County of Wayne, No. 04-2457,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Decided , June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment to the employer on the FLSA claims was affirmed where the on-call policy at issue presented no objective restrictions on the employees' off-duty time besides requiring them to carry pagers and the employees failed to demonstrate that they received so many calls that they could not effectively use their off-duty time.
|
|||||
| Allen v. White, No. 05-5166,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In inmate's habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254, district court did not err in failing to convert it to one filed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 or in applying 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1)'s one-year statute of limitations. Thus, petition was time-barred.
|
|||||
| Davet v. City of Cleveland, No. 05-3832,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Decided , June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1901.181(A) did not pose impediment to district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction because statute was interpreted as vesting jurisdiction in a housing division of a city municipal court "exclusive" of other divisions of municipal court, but not exclusive of federal court otherwise properly exercising jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, No. 05-5895,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), it was proper for a district court to dissolve an injunction on the enforcement of a local ordinance that regulated sexually oriented businesses, Metro. Gov't Nashville & Davidson County, Tenn., Code Laws § 6.54.010(Y), because amendments narrowing the ordinance cured First Amendment overbreadth issues.
|
|||||
| Farocean Marine v. Romans, No. 05-1774,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding vessel owners fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) after a repair company voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit. The company failed to show an abuse of discretion, particularly as the owners were entitled to fees and costs for work expended in opposing the motion to dismiss.
|
|||||
| Kemp, Klein, Umphrey, Endelman & May v. Bankruptcy Estate of Veltri Metal Prods. (In re Veltri Metal Prods.), No. 05-1873,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in determining that 11 U.S.C.S. § 330(a)(4)(A)(ii) prohibited it from awarding fees to the law firm, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court was vacated and the case was remanded for further consideration in accordance with the opinion.
|
|||||
| Komi v. Gonzales, Case No. 04-4349,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review of a decision by the BIA affirming an IJ's decision to deny a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel was denied because the motion did not meet Lozada's requirements and the circumstances did not warrant waiving them; moreover, the aliens failed to establish that they were prejudiced.
|
|||||
| Max Arnold & Sons, LLC v. W.L. Hailey & Co., No. 05-5893,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Decided , June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract case, a petroleum products seller failed to meet its burden under the summary judgment standard to prove breach because the obligation under the contract to pay cash flow distributions was triggered only by positive cash flow. Therefore, absent a showing that the other party had such cash flow, there was no proof of breach.
|
|||||
| Ray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 05-6353,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
