 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bolte v. Supreme Court of Wis., No. 06-3212,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney effectively asked district court to review and overturn the final decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in precisely the manner an appellate court would, but, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts did not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts, and district court's dismissal of attorney's complaint was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Deloney v. McCann, No. 06-2297,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007 * , Submitted* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)., April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied an inmate's motion seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing his § 2254 habeas petition. The inmate could not obtain relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) based upon excusable neglect because prior order, requiring him to explain why equitable tolling applied to his case, was very clear.
|
|||||
| Dillard v. Starcon Int'l, Inc.,, No. 05-4790,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in holding that an employee and employer had a meeting of the minds on all material terms essential to their settlement, including a cash payment and reinstatement, making their oral agreement enforceable. The fact that a proposed writing introduced other terms did not invalidate the oral settlement.
|
|||||
| Gravitt v. Veach, No. 06-3753,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007 * , Submitted* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)., April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although it affirmed denial of § 2241 habeas petition, appeals court did so on different grounds than those cited by district court. Inmate could not use § 2241 to challenge sentence imposed for his felon in possession of firearm crime. Claim challenging application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(b) had to be raised on direct appeal.
|
|||||
| St. Louis v. Gonzales, No. 06-3744,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007 * , Submitted* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)., April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(a)(2)(C), court lacked jurisdiction to review removal order based on IJ's finding that alien's conviction for wanton endangerment constituted aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101(a)(43)(F), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and 18 U.S.C.S. § 16, and claim that IJ did not properly weigh evidence did not fall under exception.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carrol, No. 06-2077,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from a 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), drug distribution conspiracy conviction was denied. No U.S. Const. amend. VI speedy trial violation arose from 11 month delay between indictment and trial. Defendant was responsible for much of delay. District court did not commit plain error under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) in admitting testimony.
|
|||||
| United States v. Carruthers, No. 06-2074,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Submitted , April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Argument that sentence imposed on defendant within the guidelines range was unreasonable would have been frivolous because the record showed that the sentencing court meaningfully considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors before deciding that a sentence at the high end of the guidelines range was appropriate.
|
|||||
| United States v. Krueger, No. 06-3406,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Facts supporting defendant's guilty plea to misuse of social security number under 42 U.S.C.S. § 408(a)(7)(B) were adequate under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3) because she agreed that she, with intent to deceive, misrepresented that certain social security number belonged to her and obtained credit card account using coworker's social security number.
|
|||||
| United States v. Krueger, No. 06-3406,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not present a nonfrivolous basis to appeal her sentence where the sentence was within the guidelines range and the sentencing court considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553 factors. While defendant argued for probation, the sentencing court noted defendant's criminal history and that lenient sentences had not deterred her future crimes.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
