 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adm'r v. City of Chi., No. 05-1093,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly granted summary judgment to a city employer on an employee's disability discrimination claim because the employee became unable to perform, with or without an accommodation, the essential job functions of a garage watchman. Therefore, the employee was not a qualified individual with a disability protected under the ADA.
|
|||||
| Haywood v. United States, No. 05-3842,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jolly Group, Ltd. v. Medline Indus., Nos. 05-2021 & 05-2115,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ketbang v. Gonzales, No. 05-1561,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Moss v. Ameritech Servs., No. 05-1270,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Parks v. McDonald, No. 04-3148,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father who claimed that state officials violated his due process rights during a child abuse investigation did not satisfy any of the grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) from a judgment entered in favor of the officials; he did not bring forward any newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered prior to the judgment.
|
|||||
| Pinkston v. Madry, No. 03-2973,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in finding that a prisoner could not establish any violation of his Eighth Amendment rights where the prisoner failed to show that prison guards placed him in a situation in which there was a strong likelihood that violence would occur, or that his split lip and swollen cheek presented a serious medical need.
|
|||||
| Smith v. United States, No. 05-2822,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no indication that information from security guards should not have been credited by an officer who arrested defendant; the guards provided an officer with a videotape of defendant's wrongdoing, and the officer himself was well acquainted with the guards. Thus, there was probable cause to arrest defendant.
|
|||||
| United States v. Long, No. 04-1721,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence above the advisory guidelines range was not the result of plain error because the district court would have imposed the same sentence post-Booker and it was reasonable, given the consideration of the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, including the increased chance for recurrence after defendant evolved from pornography to molesting his child.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
