 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 05-8037,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although insurer remained as only defendant in an action filed by insureds who alleged that the insurer's medical services payments were too low, amendments insureds' made to their complaint after first remand were novel and as new case was commenced after effective date of Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, insurer could properly remove it.
|
|||||
| Tex. Indep. Producers & Royalty Owners Ass'n v. EPA, Nos. 03-3277, 03-3278, 03-3279, 03-3280 & 03-3281,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Organizations representing individuals in the oil and gas industries lacked standing to challenge a general permit for uncontaminated storm water discharges issued by the EPA under 33 U.S.C.S. § 1342, as the organizations' members were exempt from the challenged permitting requirements.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carrillo, Nos. 04-2195, 04-2196 & 04-2668,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony from an informant and other evidence was sufficient to support drug conspiracy convictions, and severance was unwarranted where defenses were not mutually antagonistic. An ostrich instruction was properly given where there was evidence of deliberate ignorance by one defendant who allegedly transported drugs.
|
|||||
| United States v. Collins, No. 03-3886,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Nieves-Gonzalez, No. 04-3580,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Peters, No. 04-3913,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not make an unambiguous request for an attorney when he stated: "I'd like to get to that part now," which referred to pretrial services; the ambiguous statement was not cured by the proximity to Miranda warnings since a significant period of time had elapsed between the warnings and the statement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
