 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gentle v. Barnhart, No. 05-1089,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Higgason v. Morton, Nos. 02-4273 & 04-3773,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment in favor of five prison guards on an inmate's due process and denial of access to the courts claims was affirmed; Indiana Tort Claims Act provided adequate post-deprivation remedy for the removal of personal items from inmate's cell, and there was no evidence loss of legal documents prevented pursuit of any action.
|
|||||
| Mattenson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., Nos. 04-4270, 04-4331,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judge's error in refusing to allow the employer to place the first performance plan into evidence at trial on the employee's claim of age discrimination under the ADEA, which entitled the employee to a new trial, was compounded by the fact that the employee's termination was precipitated by his refusal to comply with a second performance plan.
|
|||||
| Murray v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., No. 05-8035,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Pannell v. Davis, No. 05-1550,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate claimed that a prison violated his due process rights because he was charged with one offense (battery) but convicted of another (disruptive conduct). However, the facts set forth in the conduct report were sufficient to apprise him that he could be found guilty of either offense and his 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 petition was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Robbins v. Lappin, No. 05-2569,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim against a police officer for denial of medical care while at police headquarters failed because he produced no summary judgment evidence that he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition necessitating treatment during the few hours he was in the officer's custody.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Buss, No. 05-3848,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Flowers, No. 05-2273,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Jackson, No. 05-2768,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
