 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Whitfield v. Ill. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-2245,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on inmate's claim that they failed to promptly accommodate his religious dietary needs because although he did not cite RLUIPA in his complaint, it supplied foundation for his complaint and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 did not require legal citations or arguments.
|
|||||
| United States v. Johnson, Nos. 03-1322, 03-1323 & 03-1477,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' within-guidelines sentences were affirmed because they failed to raise at sentencing or on direct appeal claims that government failed to prove that cocaine base was crack and that district court should not have examined PSR when ruling that one defendant was career offender, so they could not raise claims after limited Paladino remand.
|
|||||
| United States v. Olivas-Ramirez, No. 06-2415,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from within-guidelines 135-month sentence, imposed after he pleaded guilty to 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, drug conspiracy offense, was denied. District court properly found that defendant was not "minor participant" and that he was ineligible for "safety valve" relief under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 3B1.2(b), 5C1.2.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Excel Foundry & Mach., Inc., No. 06-1863,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of summary judgment to the employer on the employee's ADA claim was affirmed because it was not apparent that the employee's limitations amounted to significant restrictions on the condition, manner or duration of his ability to stand as compared to the average person.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
