 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 520 S. Mich. Ave. Assocs. Ltd. v. Devine, No. 05-2479,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals found that Illinois Employment of Strikebreakers Act (ESA) was preempted by federal law, and it reversed district court's judgment that employer involved in a strike did not have standing to challenge ESA because there was no imminent threat of prosecution and remanded case so district court could enter judgment for the employer.
|
|||||
| Confold Pac., Inc. v. Polaris Indus., No. 05-1285,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manufacturer's alleged use of a container design submitted by a designer did not breach a non-disclosure agreement that applied to a shipping needs analysis conducted by the designer; an unjust enrichment claim by the designer amounted to a claim of infringement of an unpatented design, which was preempted by patent law.
|
|||||
| Ketbang v. Gonzales, No. 05-1561,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An immigrant was not entitled to have deportation proceedings reopened under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252b(c)(3)(B) (currently codified at 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)), even though they were conducted in absentia, because he was not entitled to a translation of a show cause order in his native tongue; moreover, he was on notice to investigate further.
|
|||||
| McAtee v. Uchtman, No. 05-2949,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 habeas corpus petition was affirmed because an inmate did not explain how a variance between a witness's testimony and his subsequent affidavit showed bias on the part of the hearing committee and the hearing committee's decisions were adequately supported by a written record.
|
|||||
| Mireles v. Gonzales, Nos. 04-3217 & 04-4196,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals held that the U.S. Government did not violate an alien's rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it required him to indicate the country of his nationality in a form he completed to obtain an adjustment of his status, or when it used his answer in a hearing held to determine if he should be deported.
|
|||||
| United States v. Eberhart, Nos. 03-2068 & 04-1377,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court abused its discretion by granting defendant a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 where admission of informant's statements that his supplier was defendant was not an error because there could have been no impeachment on the central point that informant named defendant as his supplier, and defendant admitted as much to DEA agents.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 04-1518,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Matchopatow, No. 04-1322,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Simmons, No. 05-1019,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's own statements made clear that defendant was well aware of what constituted legal, as well as illicit, conduct in the area of firearm sales, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that defendant knew his conduct was unlawful and in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(a)(1)(A) and (a)(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
