 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dunmire v. Schneider, No. 06-1254,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed an investor's action against a supervisory broker at a brokerage firm because the investor had an agreement with the firm to arbitrate rather than litigate and the supervisory broker was covered by the agreement as he dealt with the investor on behalf of the firm.
|
|||||
| Fifth Third Bank v. Edgar County Bank & Trust, No. 06-3238,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence supported a bankruptcy court's ruling that debtor in possession's officers acted in both personal and corporate capacities when they signed mortgage instrument. Mortgage instrument created valid and effective mortgage under Ind. Code § 32-21-2-3. Debtor could not take superior interest in mortgaged property under 11 U.S.C.S. § 544(a).
|
|||||
| Miller v. Martin, No. 05-3978,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The decision denying an inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 was reversed because the state appellate court unreasonably concluded that strategy justified counsel's refusal to participate; counsel's total dereliction at sentencing invited application of the Cronic standard rather than the Strickland standard.
|
|||||
| Mungongo v. Gonzales, No. 06-1635,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying alien's motion to reconsider denial of her motion to reopen because alien did not present additional legal arguments, change of law, or argument that was overlooked by BIA in denying her motion to reopen, and new evidence regarding HIV status of alien's husband could not be submitted on reconsideration.
|
|||||
| Phason v. Meridian Rail Corp., No. 06-2842,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Handshake deal was not a sale of a business, and the transaction did not close until after the employer had severed all ties to the former workers; because of the delay, an employment termination under 29 U.S.C.S. § 2101 had occurred, and the case was remanded with instructions to award the workers a remedy appropriate under § 2104(a).
|
|||||
| Terezov v. Gonzales, No. 06-2101,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The BIA's refusal to set aside an order of removal in absentia pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) was an abuse of discretion when the alien's return receipts for change of address forms and documents he received about his work authorization application showed that the DHS failed to send the notice to appear to the alien's most recent address.
|
|||||
| United States v. Luster, No. 05-4312,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly applied firearms sentencing enhancement to defendant under USSG §§ 2D1.1(b)(1) and 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) for possession of firearms by his coconspirators because defendant reasonably could have foreseen that codefendant and primary distribution agent possessed firearms in furtherance of their large cocaine distribution enterprise.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
