 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Davis v. Novy, No. 04-4096,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment as matter of law in favor of police officers on citizen's Fourth Amendment claims was proper; obscured registration sticker gave probable cause for traffic stop of suspicious truck and consent to search after threat of impoundment and arrest was not coerced as that action would have been allowed under 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/6-101(d).
|
|||||
| Evans v. City of Chicago, No. 03-3844,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arrestee lacked standing to sue under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1964(c) of RICO for his alleged wrongful arrest and prosecution, as any resulting loss of income or payment of attorney's fees constituted pecuniary losses antecedent to a personal injury. The continuing violation doctrine was inapplicable to time-barred First Amendment and state tort claims.
|
|||||
| Korte v. ExxonMobil Coal USA, Inc., No. 05-1168,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Coal company was properly granted summary judgment in plaintiffs' action alleging personal injury caused by airborne coal dust because opinion of plaintiffs' expert was not based upon "sufficient facts or data" as required by Fed. R. Evid. 702 and was properly excluded, and without expert testimony, plaintiffs could not prove their claim.
|
|||||
| Medrano v. Smith, No. 05-1092,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment concluding that an inmate stated no claim for relief in his § 1983 suit was vacated where the inmate's back and shoulder conditions qualified as a medical need and the doctors did more than refuse to investigate, diagnose, or treat the inmate's conditions; they also stopped prescriptions authorized by other physicians without explanation.
|
|||||
| Peralta-Cabrera v. Gonzales, No. 05-1851,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court remanded denial of alien's motion to reopen for BIA to determine whether alien thwarted postal service's attempts to deliver notice of deportation hearing to him, and if it finds he did not, BIA should examine whether motion to reopen should be granted on basis that he did not receive notice in accordance with 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).
|
|||||
| United States v. Vaughn, No. 05-1518,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 2001 Sentencing Guidelines were properly used in sentencing defendant on two conspiracy counts where criminal conduct occurred both before and after enactment of those guidelines, decision to use 2001 Guidelines due to their greater deterrent value was reasonable under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a), and restitution order did not require shorter sentence.
|
|||||
| Hobley v. Burge, No. 05-1367,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In this § 1983 suit, an order finding that the City of Chicago's former law firm had withheld documents without a proper notice of privilege was vacated; the district court erred in subjecting the law firm to the discovery obligations of a party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) and by transferring blame for the City's errors to its former counsel.
|
|||||
| Shares, Inc. v. NLRB, Nos. 05-1289, 05-1557,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for review was denied where petitioner was the successor of a manufacturer of automotive parts and was therefore obligated to bargain with an international union under 29 U.S.C.S. § 158(a)(5); the NLRB reasonably concluded that the glow plug employees would view their jobs as unaltered.
|
|||||
| United States v. Brock, No. 03-2279,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the record confirmed that the district court considered the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) in imposing defendant's sentence for drug and weapon offenses, and the judge indicated that he would have imposed the same sentence post-Booker, the sentence was not the result of plain error.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
