 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Holman v. Horn, No. 05-3824,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly granted summary judgment to prison medical care providers in an inmate's lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 because the inmate failed to show that the medical treatment that the inmate received from the providers while he was in prison constituted deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
|
|||||
| In re Copper Antitrust Litig., Nos. 04-1713, 04-1714, 04-1715, 04-1716, 04-1717, 04-1719,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Whether viewed as when copper purchasers reasonably could have discovered that a financing group had anything to do with their injuries or as a question of equitable estoppel and fraudulent concealment, summary judgment was improper because the facts viewed most favorably to the purchasers could support a finding that their suit was timely.
|
|||||
| Semien v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 04-3664,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An ERISA plan administrator's decision to terminate disability benefits to an employee was upheld because two physician reports prepared for the administrator, coupled with a transferable skills analysis, provided a sufficient basis and rational support for the conclusion that the employee was ineligible for long-term disability benefits.
|
|||||
| United States v. Browning, No. 05-1991,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Shepard did not overrule Almendarez-Torres, so defendant was not entitled to jury trial on whether previous conviction used to enhance his sentence pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act was a conviction of him or of another person; issue in instant case was whether defendant had been convicted, and district court could resolve that issue.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dilworth, No. 03-3764,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant neither invited the court's attention to the reductions received by his co-conspirators nor identified specific factors of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553 that he wished the court to consider. Consequently, the district court's failure to address that argument did not render its sentencing determination unreasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gokey, No. 05-1110,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to resentencing in light of Booker because the district court's treatment of the guidelines as defunct was not harmless error, given that the discretionary sentence exceeded the guideline range, and there was no basis to know how the district court would have assessed a sentence had it known the guidelines were advisory.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lluvias, No. 05-3012,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from his sentence was dismissed as frivolous because the plea colloquy demonstrated that his plea was not rendered involuntary by counsel's representation about his potential sentence and because defendant would not have benefitted from safety valve relief given his criminal history and failure to disclose his drug trafficking.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
