 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cosby v. Sigler, No. 04-3331,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 was affirmed; electing not to suppress a statement did not constitute deficient performance where counsel considered it helpful to the defense because it corroborated the inmate's claim that she thought the victim was dead when she assisted in bagging and binding her.
|
|||||
| Gao v. Gonzales, No. 05-1516,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006 * , Submitted* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)., January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was properly denied asylum and other relief based on expert testimony that documents offered to corroborate the alien's claims that his wife was forced to have an abortion in China were probably fraudulent; the contested documents went to the heart of the alien's claims, and he offered no answer to the expert's suspicions.
|
|||||
| Scarver v. Litscher, No. 05-2999,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While conditions at facility where dangerous psychotic prisoner was incarcerated were severe, there was no indication prison officials knew that the conditions at the facility were causing the prisoner severe distress and thus, the prisoner could not show the requisite deliberate indifference to support his Eighth Amendment claim.
|
|||||
| Tri-Gen Inc. v. Int'l Union, Local 150, AFL-CIO, No. 05-1389,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer that was terminated from work at a quarry after a union picketed the quarry to advertise the employer's substandard wages did not establish standing to bring a 15 U.S.C.S. § 1 claim, as there was no evidence of a negative effect on competition. The picketing did not involve unlawful secondary activity under 29 U.S.C.S. § 158(b)(4).
|
|||||
| United States v. Grap, No. 04-2033,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Wesley, No. 04-1010,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Whitman v. Bartow, No. 04-3112,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Assuming inmate's objection to wearing a prison jumpsuit during his trial on drug charges was ignored, he failed to establish any Fourteenth Amendment violation; any error committed by the trial court was harmless because the evidence against the inmate was overwhelming and would have resulted in his conviction regardless of his attire.
|
|||||
| Woods v. Ill. Dep't of Corr., No. 04-3838,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted against an employee in an action claiming race discrimination in conjunction with a promotion decision. The employee's evidence of pretext was simply a disagreement with the way an interviewer evaluated the employee's qualifications, and that was not enough to establish pretext.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
