 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| HDC Med., Inc. v. Minntech Corp., No. 06-1638,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellee was properly granted summary judgment on appellant's attempted monopolization claims under the Sherman Act because appellant's changes to its warranty policy and machine were not predatory or anti-competitive but were supported by legitimate business justifications, including patient safety and the inability to predict product interaction.
|
|||||
| Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Alpha Ctr., No. 06-3142,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellants' intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) was erroneously terminated after appellees amended their complaint to withdraw a challenge to a statute, which required referral of women contemplating abortion to pregnancy crisis center, because appellants fully participated in discovery and state could not adequately represent their interests.
|
|||||
| United States v. Flores, No. 06-1938,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a motion to suppress methamphetamine seized from defendant's car was not clear error because he was no longer seized under the Fourth Amendment when a seated police officer, during a traffic stop, told him he was free to go and inquired if he could ask defendant more questions and defendant's consent to search was voluntary and by threat.
|
|||||
| United States v. Valles-Juarez, No. 06-1139,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, January 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
