 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bhutani v. United States FDA, No. 05-1077,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petitioner failed to show that his constitutional rights were violated when FDA entered a permanent debarment order against him under 21 U.S.C.S. § 335a(a)(2)(B). The petitioner's rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Double Jeopardy Clause were not violated because debarment was a remedial, civil sanction rather than a criminal penalty.
|
|||||
| Giday v. Gonzales, No. 04-1962,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An immigration judge's adverse credibility determination in an asylum case was reversed because there was insufficient evidence in the record to support it. The discrepancies noted were minor, immaterial, or could be explained by translation difficulties.
|
|||||
| Mayo v. Snyder, No. 05-1775,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly entered against inmate in pro se § 1983 suit. Inmate failed to exhaust his remedies as to claims asserted against a prison doctor, two nurses, and correctional officer. Grievance did not give notice that medical treatment provided to inmate was inadequate. Prison administrators were not aware of inmate's medical needs.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. Collins, No. 05-1957,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's dismissal of plaintiff's § 1983 suit against prosecutor on eve of trial on ground that claim could not succeed was proper as it could be characterized as reconsideration of denial of prosecutor's summary judgment motion, so plaintiff could not have been caught off guard when asked to disclose evidence he would use to prove case.
|
|||||
| Tanner v. Jupiter Realty Corp., No. 04-4318,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of employer in retaliatory discharge case was proper. Assuming Georgia law applied, employee's case was doomed from outset because Georgia did not recognize the tort, and Illinois would not have recognized claim on facts presented, particularly as employee had already been terminated when events he based claim on occurred.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cortez-Mendez, No. 05-3178,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: United States Sentencing Guidelines definition of "drug trafficking offense" rendered frivolous any contention that defendant's prior Illinois conviction for possession of controlled substance with intent to deliver was not "drug trafficking offense," so increase in his offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1) was proper.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lambert, No. 05-2228,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied defendant's motion asking sentencing court to remit unpaid balance of his fine because while complaints about BOP's administration of Inmate Financial Responsibility Program were cognizable under § 2241, he failed to file petition in district where confined or exhaust administrative remedies.
|
|||||
| United States v. Peterman, No. 04-3508,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly revoked defendant's supervised release based on preponderance of the evidence that he had violated a condition of the release by committing a state offense, even in light of the fact that the charge was later nolle prossed. The 24 month additional sentence imposed was governed by 18 U.S.C.S. § 3583(e)(3) and was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Rutherford, No. 05-2300,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appointed appellate counsel was granted an Anders withdrawal. The majority of potential appellate arguments defendant might have made were waived by entry of a guilty plea on charges of illegally transporting aliens, the record was not yet developed for ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and his sentence was presumptively reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Villalobos-Sandoval, No. 05-1268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal was dismissed and his appointed counsel was permitted to withdraw pursuant to Anders. It made no difference, for purposes of his conviction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a) that defendant did not challenge his earlier deportation. District court did not violate Booker when it found that prior conviction constituted "aggravated felony".
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
