 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Comdisco, Inc., No. 05-1697,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Seller/lessee in computer sale and leaseback transaction with buyer/lessor did not breach contract by fact that its appraiser was negligently determined the residual value of the computers, resulting in the IRS disallowing half of the buyer's tax benefit. Nothing in the contract made the seller responsible for the appraiser's negligence.
|
|||||
| Johal v. Little Lady Foods, Inc., No. 04-3261,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment to an employer on an employee's Title VII discrimination claims was affirmed; the record showed that the employer's business demands were growing and changing and that the employee's former responsibilities were distributed among three other positions as part of an overall restructuring of job functions.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Doughty, Nos. 04-1139 & 04-1311,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in denying an inmate's request for counsel under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(1) nor err in rejecting the inmate's deliberate indifference claims against prison doctors and officials because treating the inmate's hernia through nonsurgical means was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Murray v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., No. 05-8035,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's reasons for denying class certification in a Fair Credit Report Act case were rejected. Consumer was not required to try and obtain personal settlement, seeking statutory rather than compensatory damages was appropriate, and the fact that the consumer was involved in numerous other similar cases did not preclude a class action.
|
|||||
| Surratt v. Chi. Transit Auth., No. 04-4238,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment to employer on an employee's Title VII gender discrimination claim was affirmed; the employer had provided legitimate nondiscriminatory business reasons when it stated that it was facing budgetary constraints and that, in its attempts to eliminate unnecessary overtime expenditures, it placed the employee into "Area 605."
|
|||||
| United States v. Dawson, Nos. 04-2557, 04-2592,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for rehearing was denied. The United States failed to show that court erred in holding that district court committed harmless error when it ruled that Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) barred defendants from asking government agents about other judges' adverse credibility determinations. Rule 608(b) applied only to the admission of extrinsic evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hawk, No. 04-4112,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was plain error for a district court to impose a sentence in a drug case without giving written reasons for doing so because, without the findings, an appellate court was unable to determine if unconvicted drug activities bore the necessary relation to the convicted offense, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
