 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Conrad v. Barnhart, No. 04-3747,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government's unsuccessful argument that ALJ's failure to address expert's statement that disability benefit applicant would benefit from part-time work was not a violation of S.S.R. 96-8p as it was not a medical opinion but rather a statement of applicant's preference, had reasonable basis in law and fact, so denial of EAJA fees was proper.
|
|||||
| Irby v. Siedschlag, No. 05-2985,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kikalos v. Comm'r, No. 04-2981,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no clear error in the Tax Court's determination regarding the existence or the amount of a deficiency, or an accuracy-related penalty, assessed against the taxpayer owners of liquor stores where the taxpayers had failed to disclose to their accountants or the IRS reimbursement checks received from cigarette companies.
|
|||||
| United States v. Diaz-Gutierrez, No. 03-2817,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Lacy, No. 04-2746,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in assigning one point for each of defendant's three prior driving offenses pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(a)(2) (2005) because the three offenses were separated by intervening arrests, so by definition, they were unrelated and had to be counted separately.
|
|||||
| United States v. Monroe, No. 05-2240,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal was dismissed because his plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, and defendant did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, so he was bound by appeal waiver; although defendant agreed to waiver pre-Booker, waiver was enforceable because agreement did not contain explicit "escape hatch."
|
|||||
| United States v. Perry, No. 05-3982,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Ross, No. 05-2666,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 18 U.S.C.S. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction was properly denied because Amendment 674 was not made retroactive, so sentence reduction built around Amendment would not be consistent with Sentencing Commission's policy statements, and he would have gained nothing by application of Amendment.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Prison Health Servs., No. 05-2400,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of an inmate's claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 alleging that prison administrators and medical professionals were deliberately indifferent to his medical condition--an umbilical hernia in need of surgical repair--was premature because the inmate adequately alleged that they responded with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
