 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| United States v. Brummitt, No. 05-1468,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the district court applied both U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.4(b)(2) and § 2G2.4(b)(5)(D) when it sentenced defendant for possession of child pornography, at resentencing the district court had to disregard § 2G2.4(b)(2) because it was later amended out of the guidelines and was wholly encompassed by § 2G2.4(b)(5)(A).
|
|||||
| United States v. Fernandez-Reyes, No. 04-2404,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Pulley, No. 05-4603,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Santiago-Ochoa, No. 04-3338,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court properly denied a motion to dismiss the indictment because defendant did not satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(d) where he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies or show that the prior removal order was fundamentally unfair; his Booker contention was frivolous, but a limited remand was ordered.
|
|||||
| Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 04-2158,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion for reconsideration was granted. Although court properly concluded that manufacturer was prejudiced by improper admission of expert testimony in negligence and strict liability suit, it erred in ordering entry of judgment in manufacturer's favor. Pursuant to Unitherm Food Systems, court could not evaluate sufficiency of remaining evidence.
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. Yager, No. 04-4258,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Bradley, No. 04-4061,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State inmate was properly denied habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where there was overwhelming evidence that the inmate was guilty of armed robbery; the inmate therefore could not have been prejudiced by counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's allegedly improper questions.
|
|||||
| United States v. White, No. 05-2040,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 22, 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. |
