 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Charlton v. Davis, No. 05-2029,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court erred in granting § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Inmate's trial counsel did not render ineffective legal assistance by failing to request "accident" defense jury instruction during inmate's murder trial because instruction was surplusage, it no longer existed in Indiana, and inmate was not prejudiced by failure to give instruction.
|
|||||
| Mendez v. Barnhart, No. 05-2017,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ failed to articulate a reasoned basis for the denial of disability benefits to a claimant who had a combination of low IQ scores, showing borderline retardation, and depression. The reasons cited for doubting the depression, including a failure to be consistent with counseling or medication, were inadequate given the claimant's mental deficits.
|
|||||
| United States v. Arman, No. 04-2142,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Caldwell, No. 04-1929,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed after district court replied on limited Paladino remand that it would have imposed identical sentence under advisory sentencing guidelines because district court gave meaningful consideration to parties' arguments and relevant 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors and sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Duran, No. 03-2506,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Garcia, No. 04-3159,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to a presumption of innocence was not undermined by the admission of a trafficking expert's testimony that innocent persons did not attend drug deals. The inferences arising from the testimony were non-mandatory and rational. Other evidence supported defendant's 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) convictions. Resentencing was ordered.
|
|||||
| Hinrichs v. Bosma, Nos. 05-4604 & 05-4781,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Decided ** This opinion is being released initially in typescript form.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to stay an injunction on sectarian legislative prayers was denied because, in assessing the chance of success on the merits and in balancing the slight and temporary injury the Speaker of the state legislative house faced absent a stay, the Speaker failed to meet his burden of establishing that a stay ought to be granted.
|
|||||
| Hofslien v. Barnhart, No. 05-2649,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ properly denied claimant's application for DIB because once well-supported contradicting evidence was introduced, treating physician's evidence was no longer entitled to controlling weight, so ALJ was justified in giving greater weight to medical evidence that contradicted treating physician's evidence than to his evidence.
|
|||||
| Hofslien v. Barnhart, No. 05-2649,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of Social Security disability benefits by ALJ was supported by substantial evidence; treating psychiatrist's opinion was not entitled to presumption of correctness as it was contradicted by opposing evidence that the applicant was able to "do things when she needed to" and that she could perform some unskilled work.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
