 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dukes v. Barnhart, No. 05-1757,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits was affirmed because a claimant's employment constituted substantial gainful activity where his earnings in 2001 averaged $ 1053 per month, more than $ 400 over the limit determined by the regulations, and the work involved very physical duties and was done in return for compensation.
|
|||||
| Estate of Buder v. United States, No. 05-2145, No. 05-2147,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court could have reasonably concluded that it was not unfair to deny U.S. interest on amount recouped where decedent's estate erroneously claimed a deduction for a residual trust, U.S. chose not to pursue the error, and U.S. could have only recovered now because wife's estate made a mistake in including residual trust on its tax return.
|
|||||
| Ledbetter v. Alltel Corporate Servs., No. 04-3807/04-3990,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no evidence in the record or in an employer's management guide to support possible outsourcing as a reason to pay employees at too low a grade; the district court properly concluded that the employer's outsourcing argument was pretextual and properly found for an employee on his 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 claims.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hershberger, No. 04-3106,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant properly sentenced as a career offender was granted resentencing because there was grave doubt as to whether an error in sentencing him under the mandatory guidelines was harmless given that he was sentenced at the bottom of the range and there was no suggestion that he would have received the same sentence under an advisory system.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lewis, No. 05-2248,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction was affirmed as the district court did not err by restricting defendant's cross examination of a witness under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), and by excluding out of court statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802. The sentence was not unreasonable as defendant was sentenced at the bottom of the applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sitting Bear, No. 05-2367, No. 05-2368,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentences given to a father and mother following the death of their son from physical abuse were affirmed as their sentences were not unreasonable, the father was not entitled to notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) for his sentence, and the father's sentencing enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 was proper.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
