 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abstract & Title Guar. Co. v. Chi. Ins. Co., No. 06-2588,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the policy's expansive definition of a claim expense, insurer's deposit of the sum total of its financial obligations into the court's coffers for the purposes of satisfying the claims against title company meant that the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of insurer was proper on the question of breach of contract.
|
|||||
| Harzewski v. Guidant Corp., No. 06-3752,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because, if the representatives won their case by obtaining a money judgment against the company, the receipt of that money would constitute the receipt of a plan benefit, the representatives qualified as "participants" under 29 U.S.C.S. § 1002(7) and the judgment of the district court was reversed and remanded.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, No. 05-3865,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 70/4, the Illinois Whistleblower Act could not be applied retroactively to a former employee's retaliatory discharge claim because the Whistleblower Act made substantive rather than procedural changes. It was therefore unnecessary to decide whether the Act abrogated the common law.
|
|||||
| United States v. Artley, Nos. 05-2127 & 05-2220,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to USSG § 6A1.3(a), a sentencing court properly relied on statements contained in PSRs for defendants because the volume and consistency of the statements refuted any challenges to their reliability. Moreover, defendants failed to provide any evidence to challenge the factual accuracy or call any witnesses to rebut the statements.
|
|||||
| Van Patten v. Endicott, No. 04-1276,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was entitled to habeas relief because state court proceeding where inmate's lawyer appeared via speakerphone at hearing when no contest plea was entered violated his right to counsel, and recent United States Supreme Court opinion relating to courtroom spectators' wearing buttons bearing image of victim had no effect on case.
|
|||||
| Alimi v. Gonzales, No. 06-3199,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the resident's admissions before the IJ, the appellate court could not say that she suffered any prejudice from alleged due process violations; although the resident was not advised fully of her rights in her removal proceeding, she failed to demonstrate that this procedural error caused any prejudice. The decision of the BIA was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Griffin v. Sisters of St. Francis, Inc., No. 06-3312,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of summary judgment to the employer on the employees' claims under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was affirmed because the employees did not allege that the husband was fired because of his sex and the wife did not dispute that marketing to commercial accounts--her primary function--ceased after her termination.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
