 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Tanner v. County of Lenawee, No. 05-1107,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Decided , June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Law officers were entitled to summary judgment with respect to a claim by a family that the manner in which they responded to a 911 call resulted in a state-created-danger that violated the family's substantive due process rights; the facts did not support that the officers knew or should have known that their actions were endangering the family.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Robinson (In re Robinson), No. 05-1066,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney did not offer to file a fee application, request leave to file a fee application, or object in any manner after his motion to withdraw was granted and his fees were ordered disgorged, the appellate court affirmed. The bankruptcy court had the discretion pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 330 to determine attorney's fees.
|
|||||
| United States v. Delaney, No. 05-5687,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g), his sentence was upheld because the district court adequately evaluated the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553 factors, and it was not a Sixth Amendment violation to sentence him under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.4.
|
|||||
| United States v. Eden, Case No. 04-6329,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant walked away from a rental car she had been driving, the government failed to show that defendant exhibited a sufficient subjective intent to lead a reasonable officer to believe that she had abandoned her interest in a suitcase in the trunk of the rental car, thus removing the search of the suitcase from Fourth Amendment scrutiny.
|
|||||
| United States v. Louis, NO. 05-6682,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Using a prior felony conviction not charged as an element of illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(b)(2), to enhance a sentence did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial; further, the district court considered all of the sentencing factors, and the disparity created by a "fast track" scheme did not violate § 3553(a)(6).
|
|||||
| United States v. Lumley, No. 05-5685,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to, inter alia, conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 846, his 90-month sentence was reasonable because the district court imposed a sentence within the applicable Sentencing Guideline range and adequately considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors.
|
|||||
| United States v. Salazar, Nos. 05-1810/05-1835,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's argument--that a provision of the PROTECT Act that increased the mandatory minimum sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2251 from 10 to 15 years was unconstitutional because it violated the "separation of powers" doctrine and that, as applied to his case, § 2251 violated the Commerce Clause--was found to be meritless.
|
|||||
| Weaver v. Caldwell Tanks, Inc., No. 04-6458 and No. 05-5042,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a clear and unambiguous contract between a buyer and seller did not restrict the seller's sales commissions on certain items to only those where he procured or assisted in the sale, the seller was due commissions under the contract. The seller should also have been awarded prejudgment interest because his damages were liquidated.
|
|||||
| Wu v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-5009,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Title VII claim of an American of Chinese descent who alleged discriminatory firing on the basis of national origin was erroneously dismissed during trial as time-barred, but appeals court found that the claim would have failed in any event because he failed to rebut his employer's nondiscriminatory reason for termination, corporate down-sizing.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
