 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lockheart v. Hulick, No. 04-3754,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied petitioner's § 2254 petition alleging judicial bias because he had forfeited claim by not raising it in his petition for leave to appeal to state supreme court, and even if claim was considered, petitioner had not established bias because judge trying case for third time was merely unhappy with petitioner's conduct.
|
|||||
| Mudd v. Ford Motor Co., No. 05-4117,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Truck purchaser's claims against a manufacturer for actual and constructive fraud were properly dismissed, as the purchaser's allegation that the manufacturer falsely promised to "take care" of him regarding a repair issue amounted to a statement of intention or state of mind that was not actionable under Indiana law.
|
|||||
| Naeem v. McKesson Drug Co., No. 04-3816,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff former employee's intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendants, employer and other employee, was not preempted by Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1-101 et seq.; given extreme behavior outlined by district court, and presented to jury, defendants committed tort independent of duties not to discriminate.
|
|||||
| United States v. Davis, No. 03-3988,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 120-month sentence for possession of a gun in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1) was upheld; the weight given by the district court to defendant's history of substance abuse was not unreasonable, and the district court's reference upon a limited remand to facts included in a police report, if error, was harmless.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hopkins, No. 04-3322,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In sentencing defendant upon a guilty plea to bank robbery under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2113(a), the district court was not required under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 3D1.2 to 3D1.5 or 5G1.3(c) to impose a sentence to run partially concurrently with defendant's sentence on a state robbery charge; a consecutive sentence was proper.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ksobiech, No. 05-3495,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence to 18 months imprisonment for stealing explosive materials was affirmed on appeal because the district court followed post-Booker sentencing procedures and considered the sentencing facts in 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a).
|
|||||
| United States v. Leal, No. 05-3235,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentencing appeal was denied because he failed to show that his sentence was unreasonable. Defendant's sentence was presumptively reasonable because it fell within applicable, advisory federal sentencing guidelines range. The district court had considered the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) sentencing factors before imposing 38 month prison term.
|
|||||
| United States v. Santiago, No. 04-2489,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Small, No. 05-3168,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's perjury and obstruction of justice made him an accessory to drug conspiracy about which he falsely testified, the district court properly identified that conspiracy as underlying offense. Contrary to defendant's claim, it was clear that district court was aware of Booker and it did not erroneously apply the USSG as mandatory.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
