 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., No. 05-2321,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because 7 U.S.C.S. § 6912(e) was non jurisdictional, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction; however, dismissal of the case was affirmed because neither the futility nor legal issue exceptions applied to excuse the insurers' requirement to exhaust their remedies before the Department of Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals.
|
|||||
| Baum v. Helget Gas Prods., No. 05-2142,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in granting an employer summary judgment on a breach of contract claim where a handwritten paper was textually ambiguous as to whether it created a three-year employment contract. Summary judgment was proper on the misrepresentation claims as the employee admitted that the parties had not discussed the length of employment.
|
|||||
| Bloom v. Metro Heart Group of St. Louis, No. 05-2682,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee failed to show that former employer terminated her in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.780. There was no causal relationship between filing the claim and the termination as the employee's inability to perform the essential functions of the job was a non-pretextual reason for discharge.
|
|||||
| Menz v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., No. 05-1739,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Individuals' motion to remand their product liability actions to state court was properly denied as a service company had no duty to warn of roll overs or retrofit a tractor with a roll over protection system and thus, it had been fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. However, dismissal for spoliation of evidence was inappropriate.
|
|||||
| Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11 v. Renollett, No. 05-1082,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly held that a school district complied with the IDEA where any procedural irregularities related to the student's written behavior intervention plan did not deny him a free and appropriate public education, the district had complied with Minnesota's special education regulations, and the student had made sufficient progress.
|
|||||
| United States v. Allaei, No. 05-1969,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 24-month sentence for conspiracy to manufacture and cultivate in excess of 100 marijuana plants in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(B) was affirmed because the district court did not choose to depart based on aberrant conduct and it found defendant's circumstances not so extraordinary, particularly given his advantages.
|
|||||
| United States v. Anderson, No. 05-1666,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was convicted of various charges based on defrauding 22 older people in a complex investment scheme, was not deprived of due process by a higher sentence on remand. There was no presumption of vindictiveness as there was a new sentencing judge on remand, and the higher sentence was based on factors unrelated to the original sentence.
|
|||||
| United States v. Arroyo-Santiago, No. 05-2563,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly added a two level enhancement for obstruction of justice based on defendant's false testimony at trial where it acknowledged that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, explicitly found that defendant committed perjury at trial, and that finding was supported by the record.
|
|||||
| United States v. Kay, No. 04-4109,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for possessing pseudoephedrine, knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, was supported by sufficient evidence, where officers found hundreds of loose pseudoephedrine pills and boxes of newly purchased pseudoephedrine during a vehicle search, and defendant admitted that he was "collecting pills."
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
