 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lambert v. Buss, No. 07-2378,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied death row inmate's motion for stay of execution pending appeal of denial of inmate's request for preliminary injunction in civil suit challenging means by which Indiana carried out death sentences because inmate could not demonstrate likelihood of success on merits as lethal injection procedure had been used on other capital defendant.
|
|||||
| TAS Distrib. Co. v. Cummins Engine Co., No. 05-1371,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In this breach of contract action, the grant of summary judgment to defendant manufacturer was affirmed because plaintiff developer failed to produce any evidence that proved its lost profits to a reasonable certainty; the Illinois "new business rule" rendered a comparison to the competitor's sales of engines somewhat speculative.
|
|||||
| United States v. Biggs, No. 05-4613,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed because the officers had probable cause for the arrest, defendant's mistaken belief that he would be released if he turned over guns did not render his consent involuntary, and there was no error in the decision to permit the jury to view the cocaine exhibit during deliberations.
|
|||||
| United States v. Prude, No. 06-1425,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not commit reversible error in admitting testimony during defendant's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1973gg-10(2)(B) voter fraud trial. Although district court did not give requested mistake instruction, its good faith instruction, combined with element of offense instructions, adequately instructed jury concerning defendant's theory of defense.
|
|||||
| Hilvety v. Comm'r, No. 06-1525,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Goode, No. 06-3443,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 84-month guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to distributing a quantity of MDMA (ecstasy) that equated to about 200 kilograms of marijuana was affirmed because district court exercised its discretion under Booker when it found that defendant's criminal record showed a predisposition not to comply with the law.
|
|||||
| United States v. Harris, No. 05-4259,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence imposed upon defendant's conviction for defrauding investors through the use of interstate wires, a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1343, was properly enhanced under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1(b)(13)(B)(i) because the hedge fund involved in case was a financial institution as it was engaged in investing bonds and securities.
|
|||||
| BCS Ins. Co. v. Guy Carpenter & Co., No. 06-1050,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Limitations period under the Insurance Producers Limitations Act, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-214.4, did not apply to an insurer's claims against a reinsurance intermediary; the intermediary was not an "insurance producer." The intermediary could not be held liable for implied indemnity, as its actions were not the sole cause of the insurer's losses.
|
|||||
| Stevens v. McBride, No. 05-1442,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, June 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was entitled to a habeas corpus writ on his claim that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated at his death penalty hearing because his counsels' decision to use a psychological expert who had been damaging at trial instead of presenting mainstream psychological testimony was prejudicial to the inmate.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
