 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jenkins v. Yager, No. 04-4258,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was vacated in part. If plan administrator delegated investment decision-making, he was not fulfilling trustee duty of care and prudence by not making independent investigation as to propriety of profit-sharing investments. There also appeared to be genuine issue of fact as to whether defendants' alleged breaches harmed employee.
|
|||||
| United States v. Dunn, No. 05-4217,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under USSG § 3E1.1(a) after the district court found that he had obstructed justice. In addition, defendant allowed the case to proceed to jury selection before pleading guilty.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lim, No. 05-2419,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for unlawfully possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C.S. § 5861(d) was upheld because § 5861(d) was a legitimate exercise of the taxing power under U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, did not violate the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and was not unconstitutionally vague.
|
|||||
| Kholyavskiy v. Achim, No. 05-2893,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2242 and case law, a habeas petition in which a prisoner sought release from present physical confinement had to name the person who had the immediate custody of him, and the refugee did not name his immediate custodian, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the refugee's habeas petition.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Jones, No. 05-1932,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of qualified immunity to the chief on the officer's claim under § 1983 was affirmed where the officer's speech was protected under the First Amendment since it addressed a matter of public concern and it was clearly established that a public employer could not retaliate against an employee who exercised his First Amendment speech rights.
|
|||||
| United States v. Davis-Cobbins, No. 05-1872,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for distributing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1) was vacated because the district court failed to make a factual finding that defendant distributed the crack form of cocaine base to impose a sentence using the stiffer penalties applicable to crack under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(5).
|
|||||
| United States v. Martinez, No. 04-1268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence of 188 months for distributing crack cocaine was not unreasonable because a sentencing court was not required to consider the differential in the base offense levels under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for crack and powder cocaine. On remand, the district court complied with the procedures set forth in Paladino.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cherry, No. 04-3527,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Ross, No. 05-4720,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, April 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant explicitly waived the right to appeal in his plea agreement, so any argument challenging the conviction would have been frivolous. Even if the appeal waiver were not valid, or if plea agreement did not contain a waiver, defendant's sentence was lawfully imposed by the district court. Any claim of unreasonableness would have been futile.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
