 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cooper v. IBM Pers. Pension Plan, Nos. 05-3882 & 06-1260,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal from district court's final decision was dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) as it was filed on 31st day; district court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for additional time under R. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii) because appellant's assumption that "30 days" and "one month" were same even when month had 31 days was not "excusable."
|
|||||
| Dunlap v. Hepp, No. 05-2179,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was properly denied 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 relief on his claim that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated when he was not allowed to cross-examine witness concerning statement made about six-year-old victim's "seductive behavior" because state supreme court found that acts were not sufficient similar.
|
|||||
| IFC Credit Corp. v. Aliano Bros. Gen. Contrs., Inc., No. 05-1720,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a contract case was improper because, whether federal or state law applied, a forum selection clause was not invalid due to confusion simply because a specific state was not named; the contract stated that suit could be filed in the state of the headquarters of a lessor or its assignee.
|
|||||
| Iysheh v. Gonzales, No. 05-1082,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was properly ordered deported because his conspiracy conviction qualified as aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) and (U); when plea agreement, superseding indictment, and corrected judgment order were reviewed, it was clear that total loss exceeded $ 200,000 and alien pleaded guilty to entire conspiracy, fraud included.
|
|||||
| Pacheco v. Lappin, No. 05-1959,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's claim that BOP violated his equal protection rights when it allowed similarly situated white prisoners into prison-run substance abuse program, but not him, was improperly dismissed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2) because he went beyond bare-bones allegations necessary to state claim and did not rely only on white inmate named in complaint.
|
|||||
| United States ex rel. Gear v. Emergency Med. Assocs. of Ill., Inc., Nos. 05-2235 & 05-3202,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of defendants in a qui tam action was proper as medical resident had based his lawsuit on information regarding fraudulent Medicare billings that had been publicly disclosed. Resident was not an "original source" under 31 U.S.C.S. § 3730(e)(4)(B) as he never voluntarily disclosed any information he had to the Government.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, No. 05-2341,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Submitted , February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and dismissed defendant's appeal because plea agreement contained appeal waiver, and defendant did not want his guilty plea set aside, so any attempt to escape appeal waiver would be frivolous, and any claim that counsel was ineffective in negotiating waiver should be raised on collateral review.
|
|||||
| United States v. Musa, No. 04-3009,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Sharp, No. 05-1449,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to notice prior to sentencing that a district court intended to deny a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 and to impose an enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 because the decision was based on false testimony.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
