 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andrews v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., No. 04-2882,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a district court had granted summary judgment in favor of a cargo owner in a truck driver's negligence suit and had denied the driver's initial Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, a second Rule 59(e) motion was properly denied as untimely; the filing of the second motion therefore did not toll the time for appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).
|
|||||
| United States v. Dennis, No. 04-4231,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's sentence was affirmed because district court's selection of identical discretionary and guidelines sentences did not show that it applied the guidelines as mandatory; And since the court imposed a term within the guidelines range, it was not required to articulate how it applied the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors in choosing the sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Wilkie, Nos. 05-2878 & 05-3155,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' suppression motion was properly denied. They failed to show that traffic stop was impermissibly large in scope or long in duration. Initial stop was justified by Ind. Code § 9- 19-6-4(e) violation. Officers had a reasonable basis to suspect drug trafficking and to use drug-sniffing dog, based on circumstances that developed during stop.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
