 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Thomas v. Corwin, No. 06-1496,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was granted summary judgment on an employee's ADA, ADEA, and Title VII claims because the employee's refusal to cooperate with the reasonable requirements of her fitness-for-duty evaluation and her violation of the employer's rules of conduct provided defendants with legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to terminate the employee.
|
|||||
| United States v. Garate, No. 06-1667,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Below-guidelines 30 month sentence that was imposed on defendant, after he pleaded guilty to 18 U.S.C.S. § 2423(b) offenses, was vacated. Sentence was unreasonable because district court gave undue mitigating weight to defendant's age and other factors while ignoring other significant factors, such as impact of crime on young victim and her family.
|
|||||
| United States v. Griffin, No. 06-2905,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 3, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly adopted a five level offense level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.2(b)(2)(B), based on defendant's admission that he used Internet peer-to-peer file-sharing network to download child pornography. Defendant expected to receive thing of value by swapping pornography online with other network users.
|
|||||
| Hudson v. ConAgra Poultry Co., No. 06-2596,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Farm owners' tort claims against a poultry processor were arbitrable; an Arkansas choice-of-law provision in a contract between the parties did not require application of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-201(b)(2), which precluded application of contractual arbitration provisions to tort claims. The claims were properly found to be barred by res judicata.
|
|||||
| Immigration Law Group, LLP v. Danna McKitrick, P.C., No. 06-2209,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment holding that the corporation was equitably estopped from pursuing its claims against the law firm was affirmed because removing the fees from the client trust account demonstrated a partner at the law firm's belief that the fees were earned, even though he never mentioned his opinion on the matter to anyone at the law firm.
|
|||||
| Pierson v. Dormire, No. 06-2545,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State inmate's habeas petition was timely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1); the inmate was entitled to the benefit of the 90-day period for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court even though he neither moved to transfer his direct appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court nor filed a certiorari petition.
|
|||||
| United States v. Patterson, No. 06-3050,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly applied six-level enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(8)(C) to defendant's sentence because evidence indicated that chemicals and equipment seized during warrant search of apartment that defendant shared with his girlfriend and her three- or four-year-old son created substantial risk of harm to three or four-year-old child.
|
|||||
| United States v. Varner, No. 06-2862,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's guilty plea conviction for violating 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), was affirmed because seizure of ammunition during warrantless search of his house did not violate Fourth Amendment as officer was lawfully in position to view ammunition, and its incriminating nature was immediately apparent, so he had right to seize it.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
