 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emples. v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 06-2744,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C.S. § 152, Seventh, precluded railroad carriers from unilaterally imposing policies that required employees to substitute paid leave for FMLA leave; although 29 U.S.C.S. § 2612 of the FMLA allowed employers to require substitution, § 2612 did not abrogate rights protected by the RLA.
|
|||||
| Djellouli v. Gonzales, No. 06-2028,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231 was denied because the only harm that he personally suffered was a threat made by alleged terrorists who visited his house, and unfulfilled threats did not qualify as persecution; the rest of the IJ's holdings were also supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Marshall, No. 06-2393,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court analyzed the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors and found aggravating factors in defendant's case, including defendant's arrogance and dishonesty throughout the proceedings, her willingness to perjure herself at trial, her lack of remorse, and her attempts to blame others for her conduct, trial court's sentence was not unreasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Tedder, No. 05-4448,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not abuse its discretion when, upon remand, it sentenced defendant to 60 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to commit money laundering; defendant knew that a sentence above the 37 to 46 months' imprisonment was a possibility, and the district court found a high risk of recidivism.
|
|||||
| Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Int'l, No. 06-3799,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By contacting customers and negotiating future deliveries, a competitor did not violate arbitration award that prohibited it from marketing an anesthetic during the term of a patent and licenses. Order was ambiguous in that it could mean no promoting or no deliveries, and customers were entitled to know that competitor could deliver in the future.
|
|||||
| Peters v. Astrazeneca LP, No. 06-2930,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of defendants on an inmate's strict liability and negligence claims arising out of his use of an over-the-counter drug was proper because he failed to offer expert testimony that the drug caused his injuries; evidence he presented showed correlation between the drug use and taste loss, which was not evidence of causation.
|
|||||
| United States v. Harris, No. 06-1630,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed because as defendant walked across the muddy yard, he continuously looked over his shoulder at the cruiser and kept his hands in his pockets, the detention only minimally intruded on defendant's privacy, and the officer had reason to believe defendant may be armed and dangerous.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
