 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| All EMS, Inc. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Nos. 05-1234, 05-1330,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the franchisor failed to ease the effect of the franchisees' breach by refusing the franchisee the services it needed to maximize its net worth as required by agreement, district court was justified in reducing the franchisor's damages. Having consented to a bench trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 39, the franchisees waived their right to a jury.
|
|||||
| King v. Harrington, No. 05-1977,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because injured parties failed to make a showing that they intended to use evidence of driver's insurance for an alternate purpose set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 411, this evidence was properly excluded. The injured parties' argument regarding the testimony of a police officer also failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Miller v. AdminaStar Fed., Inc., No. 05-2648,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to an employer on a former employee's Title VII and ADEA sex and age discrimination claims; the employee, who was fired under a policy prohibiting employment of convicted felons, failed to identify a similarly situated worker who was more favorably treated under the policy and did not show pretext.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jarrett, No. 05-2844,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of the district court dismissing the indictment was reversed where the district court committed legal error when it found a presumption of vindictiveness to be warranted in the circumstances of defendant's indictment. At no point had defendant produced any public or private statement by a prosecutor manifesting animus toward him.
|
|||||
| United States v. Spano, Nos. 03-1110, 03-1113 & 03-1195,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' sentences were affirmed after district court stated on Paladino remand that it would have imposed same sentence under advisory sentencing guidelines regime because defendants failed to rebut presumptively reasonable guideline sentence and district court gave relevant 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors meaningful consideration.
|
|||||
| United States v. Thurman, No. 05-3373,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's properly-calculated guideline sentence was affirmed because sentence was presumptively reasonable, and defendant failed to rebut presumption of reasonableness; district court properly analyzed 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors, including fact that defendant was selling drugs as illegal business, making crime more offense in nature.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. General Bd. of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, No. 05-3758,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Scaife v. Cook County, No. 04-2966,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment granting summary judgment to the sheriff in his official capacity and the executive director in his individual capacity on Title VII and § 1981 claims of discrimination and retaliation were affirmed; there was nothing in the record whatsoever to suggest that the employee's suspensions were improperly motivated.
|
|||||
| West v. Hautamaki, No. 04-4234,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
