 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hatch v. Briley, No. 05-3204,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed inmate's § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it was not filed within two-year statute of limitations, even excluding tolling period for resolution of his grievance; because complaint was dismissed as untimely, not for lack of merit, it did not count as strike under § 1915(g).
|
|||||
| In re UAL Corp., Nos. 06-3489, 06-3548 & 06-3559,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's ruling that airline waived right to argue for earlier terminal date for pilots pension plan by failing to appeal interlocutory order was reversed because appellate court previously addressed subject, holding that airline had not forfeited its legal position by failing to take interlocutory appeal, and its decision resolved issue.
|
|||||
| Quinn v. Harris, No. 06-1684,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because detainee's filing was more than five months late and detainee's psychological and personal difficulties did not limit her ability to function in a way that would qualify her for tolling under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202, 5/13-211, her 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claims were correctly dismissed for violation of the two-year statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| United States v. Figueroa, No. 06-3022,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated because the government dealt with pretrial matters in a diligent and timely way, defendant's frequent changing of counsel caused some of the delay, defendant failed to raise any speedy trial objection prior to trial, and defendant failed to show any resulting prejudice.
|
|||||
| United States v. Valadez, No. 05-4719,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly allowed prosecution to introduce recorded conversations between defendant and informant under Fed. R. Evid. 901 because it credited prosecution's evidence that recording was made by digital device that precluded altering of tracks and marked tracks with accurate date and time, and evidence showed chain of custody.
|
|||||
| Coulter v. McCann, No. 06-2457,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas corpus relief was not warranted with respect to a Batson equal protection challenge because, while the state court's explanation of why it believed the prosecution's reasons for its peremptory strikes were race-neutral left something to be desired, it was not clear that the decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Batson.
|
|||||
| Daniels v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 06-3508,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1447(d), appeals court lacked jurisdiction to review 28 U.S.C.S. § 2679(d)(3) remand order. Section 2679(d)(2) acted as exception to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1447(d) only when scope-of-federal-employment certification was issued, not when remand was ordered based on district court's finding that defendants were not federal employees.
|
|||||
| United States v. Swanson, No. 05-4432,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court was not persuaded by defendant's disagreements with the calculation of fraud loss under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1 and the amount of restitution. Nor was the appellate court persuaded by his arguments that rested on views about Booker that it had rejected in other cases; judgment of the district court was affirmed.
|
|||||
| United States v. Thompson, No. 06-3676,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 20, 2007, Opinion Issued
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant should not have been convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.S. § 666 and § 1341 due to her actions in steering a state contract to a particular bidder. While defendant might have violated state procurement rules, there was no evidence that her actions, which did not involve a bribe or kickback, were for the purposes of private gain.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
