 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Franklin v. City of Chicago Police Dep't, No. 04-2996,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Home Protective Servs. v. ADT Sec. Servs., No. 05-1074,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly entered against a dealer as to its Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law claims. The parties did not have "community of interest," which was required element of "dealership" under Wis. Stat. § 135.02(3)(a). Defendant did not have overwhelming economic power over dealer; dealer was not "over a barrel" with regard to defendant.
|
|||||
| Square D Co. v. Comm'r, No. 04-4302, No. 6067-97,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayer was not entitled to take deductions on the accrual method for interest on loans because Treas. Reg. § 1.267(a)-3 required that deductions for payments to a foreign related party be based on the cash method; moreover, this regulation did not violate an international treaty because the requirement did not fluctuate based on nationality.
|
|||||
| U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. United Air Lines, Inc., (In re United Air Lines), Nos. 05-1752 & 05-1814,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Balancing the duty a bank owed to bondholders with the duty of good faith it owed to an airline, it was not appropriate to imbue trustees with unfettered discretion to disburse funds so that they could punish debtors such as the airline on the verge of bankruptcy even in the face of agreements that created a nondiscretionary duty to disburse funds.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hardamon, No. 05-1982,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 18 U.S.C.S. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce life sentence on basis of Amendment 591 was properly denied because sentence was imposed in compliance with Amendment; district court applied USSG § 2D1.1 as Chapter 2 offense guideline for defendant's drug conspiracy and Amendment did not prohibit using drug quantity to calculate offense level.
|
|||||
| United States v. McCaffrey, No. 03-2189,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentencing appeal was denied. As a child pornography end user, defendant was properly sentenced under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.2. Double counting provision set out in § 2G2.2, application n.2, was applicable as defendant's prior uncharged sexual abuse offenses were proven beyond reasonable doubt at sentencing hearing.
|
|||||
| United States v. Pophal, No. 05-1421,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly sentenced under Armed Career Criminal Act because in plea agreement, he consented to judicial factfinding, by preponderance of evidence, of sentencing adjustments, and Supreme Court in Almendarez-Torres rejected his argument that fact of prior conviction had to be alleged in indictment and admitted by him or proven to jury.
|
|||||
| United States v. Redd, No. 05-3311,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw from defendant's appeal because there was no nonfrivolous basis for it; among other things, denial of motion for bill of particulars was proper as relevant information defendant requested was available in other ways, and defendant's motion for acquittal was proper given sufficiency of evidence against him.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
