 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Crossett Paper Mills Emples. Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc'y, Inc., No. 06-2888,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because use of automobile was sole proximate cause of bodily injuries at issue in underlying state action, and whatever insured's liability for those bodily injuries might be, district court properly found that insurance policy excluded liability from coverage under automobile exclusion in policy and granted summary judgment for insurer.
|
|||||
| Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litig. Inquivosa SA v. Ajinomoto Co., No. 05-4303, No. 05-4307,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the "gives rise to" language of 15 U.S.C.S. § 6a required foreign buyers to show that domestic effects of anticompetitive conduct were the direct or proximate cause of their Sherman Act claim, and their claim failed to satisfy this causation standard, district court was justified in concluding that they failed to state a Sherman Act claim.
|
|||||
| Pins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 06-1981,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured was improperly granted summary judgment on claim that insurer had duty to defend alienation of affections claim because underlying plaintiff could not recover unless he proved that insured intended to cause comfort and consortium injuries, and policy did not provide coverage for intentional injuries, so insurer had no duty to defend.
|
|||||
| Robinette v. Jones, No. 06-1674,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arrestee's voluntary dismissal of first § 1983 action did not prevent "valid and final judgment" on immunity issues that district court ruled were precluded by collateral estoppel in second action; preliminary rulings on immunity defenses were valid and final. Summary judgment for city and police officers was proper on arrestee's remaining claims.
|
|||||
| United States v. Sanchez, No. 05-4227, No. 05-4228, No. 06-1371,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not clearly err in denying safety valve relief under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2 because, by refusing to answer questions or providing inconsistent statements, defendants did not satisfy requirement of 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(f)(5) that they provide U.S. with complete and truthful information regarding their crimes.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
