 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adusumilli v. Palliative Care Ctr. & Hospice of the N. Shore, No. 05-1386,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in denying former employee's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for reconsideration of grant of summary judgment and award of sanctions to former employer because employee's attack on merits of order granting summary judgment was legal question that was not proper ground for relief under R. 60(b).
|
|||||
| Andreola v. Wisconsin, No. 05-1931,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: First Amendment did not compel state to provide inmate with meals prepared according to his specifications while litigation continued because state was providing him with diet that would be accepted as kosher by most Jews; First Amendment did not require prisons to accommodate every element of each inmate's faith.
|
|||||
| Dembele v. Gonzales, No. 05-2013,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dismissed alien's petition for review because alien did not report for removal as directed, making her a fugitive, and under the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine, which applied to immigration cases, those who avoid lawful custody forfeit judicial review.
|
|||||
| Hicklin Eng'g, L.C. v. Bartell, Nos. 05-2282 & 05-2302,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a reasonable jury could have inferred that the engineer implicitly agreed to use the firm's data for its benefit rather than his own, summary judgment on the firm's claims under Wis. Stat. § 134.90 was reversed. Firms' sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 for refusing to admit that the engineer worked as an independent contractor was proper.
|
|||||
| Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 05-8037,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Pannell v. Davis, No. 05-1550,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rising-Moore v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., No. 05-1976,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rud v. Liberty Life Assur. Co., No. 04-3655,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of insurer in an ERISA action was affirmed; insurer was a fiduciary under ERISA, standard of review was arbitrary and capricious, denial of further disability benefits to an employee was not arbitrary or capricious, and employee failed to show conflict of interest that would support plenary review of insurer's decision.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dunkin, No. 05-1677,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In prosecution for two bank robberies, district court should not have allowed defendant's defense of coercion, but once defense was allowed, government had right to present evidence of earlier robbery under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because probative value of earlier robbery in relation to defense was considerable and prejudice was slight.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
