 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Almonacid v. United States, No. 05-4753,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in denying an inmate's motion for 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 relief without an evidentiary hearing; there was no showing that counsel was ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for advising the inmate to turn down a plea offer, as the only witnesses who connected the inmate with a drug conspiracy were cooperating coconspirators.
|
|||||
| Baylie v. FRB, No. 06-2213,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was properly granted summary judgment in reference to discrimination claims from two employees because the employees failed to make out prima facie cases to support their claims. An expert report using statistical evidence was not sufficient, in and of itself, to require that the claims be taken to trial.
|
|||||
| Gilles v. Blanchard, No. 06-1441,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public university's policy prohibiting "solicitors" from obtaining access to the lawn in front of the university library, although vague as applied to an evangelist who wished to speak there, did not violate the First Amendment because there was no evidence that the university allowed any uninvited outsiders to use the lawn for any purpose.
|
|||||
| Hilvety v. Comm'r, No. 06-1525,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007*, 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)., February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tax court's dismissal of taxpayer's petition for redetermination of tax deficiency and additions to tax assessed by IRS Commissioner and imposition of 26 U.S.C.S. § 6673(a)(1) penalty was affirmed because Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 did not alter statutory requirement to file income tax return, and taxpayer failed to allege error in deficiency.
|
|||||
| United States v. McGee, No. 06-1228,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007, Submitted , February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Any challenge by defendant to being classified as a career offender was frivolous because, as provided by U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, his release from incarceration for prior convictions occurred within 15 years of his crack selling that led to the current charge. Moreover, his sentence fell within the lower range for non-career offenders.
|
|||||
| Yang v. Gonzales, No. 06-2648,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 14, 2007*, Submitted* We granted the appellant's motion to waive oral argument. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f)., February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied untimely motion to reopen asylum case. Alien did not present evidence of changed country conditions in China, which would justify reopening of her case. Change in personal circumstances, arising from children's birth, did not trigger 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) exception for untimely motion to reopen.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
