 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Briggs v. LaBarge (In re McGregory), No. 06-2233,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Debtor counsel's appeal of a sanctions order was dismissed as moot. Counsel's argument that his case presented issues that were capable of repetition yet evaded review was rejected because a timely motion for a stay could have preserved his appeal, and possible collateral consequences were not recognizable exceptions to rule of equitable mootness.
|
|||||
| Efinchuk v. Astrue, No. 05-4109,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court lacked jurisdiction over a refusal to reopen appeal because SSDI claimant failed to demonstrate a colorable claim of a constitutional violation. Nothing about the proceedings (1) indicated the ALJ could not render a fair judgment, (2) showed the procedural safeguards were constitutionally inadequate or (3) shocked the conscience.
|
|||||
| Fair v. Norris, No. 06-1580,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff sought a promotion and defendant ultimately offered her the promotion at the advertised salary. Plaintiff turned it down. No reasonable factfinder could have concluded that she was entitled to relief under Title VII. The 22 days between the filing of her grievance and the promotion offer did not give rise to an actionable Title VII claim.
|
|||||
| Kecso v. Meredith Corp., No. 06-2389,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment granting summary judgment to the employee on her ERISA claim was reversed because the employer's decision to terminate the employee's LTD benefits was reasonable; the medical records from the employee's late 2002 and early 2003 visits to a medical clinic suggested that her tumor was not disabling.
|
|||||
| Koehler v. Brody, No. 06-2357, No. 06-2746,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Class action lead plaintiff's claims that the class attorneys violated the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78u-4, and breached fiduciary duties, were properly dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), as res judicata precluded relitigation of the issues raised in his objections.
|
|||||
| United States v. Bell, No. 06-2985,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied because no violation of his U.S. Const. amend. IV rights was shown. Informant's reliable, corroborated information provided reasonable suspicion justifying investigatory stop. Officers did not use unreasonable force in conducting stop. They could perform limited protective search of car's interior.
|
|||||
| United States v. Gallegos, No. 06-2009,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if court assumed that defendant and his co-defendant were equally culpable in the drug conspiracy, they were not similarly situated and their sentence disparity, as to 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)(6), was not unwarranted. Co-defendant was in a lower criminal history category, and received motions for a downward departure for substantial assistance.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hunt, No. 06-1376,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's revocation sentence was reasonable. The sentence was within authorized limits, and the district court considered appropriate factors in imposing the revocation sentence, including the nature of the violations, the need for general deterrence, and the pertinent policy statements in Chapter 7 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
