 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kalda v. Sioux Valley Physician, Inc., No. 06-1277,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were properly granted summary judgment on former employees' ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim based on former employer's alleged misrepresentation about future funding of plans because employer's statements about funding constituted no more than future hope or goal, and statements were too vague to qualify as "unequivocal promises."
|
|||||
| United States v. Penny, No. 06-1588,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While defendant claimed that a gun was left in his car by a friend for defendant's protection, unrelated to a drug transaction, district court was free to consider that the gun's proximity to defendant and the drugs during the would-be drug transaction had the purpose or effect of facilitating that felony offense. Defendant's sentence was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Gretillat v. Care Initiatives, No. 06-1738,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of summary judgment to the employer on the ADA and Iowa Civil Rights Act claims was affirmed because the limited extent of the employee's known standing and walking limitations did not constitute a disability and there was no indication that the employee's limitations, taken together, severely limited any major life activity.
|
|||||
| Njenga v. Gonzales, No. 05-3088,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien was properly denied asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A) because her lack of educational opportunities and generalized fear of crime were not permissible grounds for asylum, and alien's fear of female genital mutilation was not objectively reasonable given that it was rarely performed on adults and Kenyan government had outlawed practice.
|
|||||
| Rutledge v. Liberty Life Assur. Co., No. 06-1996,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of summary judgment to the insurance company on the employee's claim for long-term disability benefits pursuant to a plan under ERISA was affirmed because many of the employee's treating physicians concluded that the employee was able to work with minimal restrictions.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ralph, No. 06-1293,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not clearly err in finding that defendant violated conditions of supervised release by committing state crime by molesting child and failing to timely notify probation officer after being arrested or questioned because district court's finding that testimony of child and officer was credible was virtually unreviewable on appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Strong, No. 06-1633,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Westbrook v. City of Omaha, No. 06-1935,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City employer did not violate a police officer's Fourth Amendment rights when it ordered him to submit bank records for a two-day period, without a warrant, after an accusation from an arrestee that the officer took money from him and converted it to his own use. Neither the inception nor the scope of the intrusion was unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Wickersham v. City of Columbia, No. 06-3635, No. 06-3637,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
