 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Borello v. Allison, No. 05-3515,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prison employees were entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in an inmate's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 suit alleging Eighth Amendment violations arising from an attack on the inmate by his cellmate; there was insufficient evidence that the employees responded unreasonably to the inmate's complaints about the cellmate's behavior.
|
|||||
| Brewer v. Ray, No. 05-3129,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006*, Submitted* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)., May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An institutional complaint examiner was entitled to summary judgment in an inmate's action claiming that the examiner denied him access to the courts because the examiner's denial of his complaint did not infringe on the inmate's First or Fourteenth Amendment rights, and his participation in the case showed that he had access to the courts.
|
|||||
| Savickas v. Walker, No. 05-3442,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006 *, Submitted* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)., May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's § 1983 action was properly dismissed because plaintiff was challenging his placement on electronic detention (ED) as a condition of the term of supervised release and plaintiff had not shown that his sentence had been reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid, so case was barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
|
|||||
| Sutton v. Barnhart, No. 05-2803,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A disability claimant's 42 U.S.C.S. § 405(g) appeal was denied because substantial evidence supported Social Security ALJ's finding that she retained residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work. ALJ properly discounted opinions offered by two non-treating physicians. Daily tasks that claimant could perform supported ALJ's RFC finding.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jordan, No. 05-4519,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Submitted , May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a district court's plea colloquy with defendant complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c) and defendant's guilty plea to drug charges was knowing and voluntary, defendant's counsel was permitted to withdraw as counsel on defendant's appeal. Plea agreement included a waiver of defendant's right to appeal and was not open to challenge.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ornelas-Hernandez, No. 05-4159,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006, Submitted , May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court rightly denied defense request for downward departure from mandatory minimum sentence for conviction on 1 count of cocaine distribution because defendant was ineligible for reduction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(e) given government's refusal to move for same and because defendant was not eligible for safety valve relief under § 3553(f).
|
|||||
| United States v. Rodriguez, No. 05-3177,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 11, 2006 *, Submitted* After an examination of the appellant's brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the appellant's brief and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)., May 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651 petition, challenging indictment and sufficiency of evidence, should have been dismissed by district court for want of jurisdiction because it was impermissible successive collateral attack under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 and he did not obtain permission before filing subsequent action.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
