 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bowles v. Osmose Utils. Servs., No. 05-2069,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's judgment in favor of an employee in a race discrimination case was affirmed because the district court did not clearly err in making findings of fact that supported the employee's account of the racial harassment that he suffered and the way that it affected him, and the punitive damages award was not excessive.
|
|||||
| United States v. Franklin, No. 04-3783,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Hernandez, No. 04-4051,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Weston, No. 04-3325, No. 05-1291,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where officers went to the front door of defendant's residence to ask about reports of stolen vehicles and saw discolored propane tanks, the officers' entry into the curtilage of the home was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the entry was a limited invasion of his privacy in furtherance of a legitimate law enforcement objective.
|
|||||
| Wallace v. DTG Operations, Inc., No. 04-3345,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee presented sufficient evidence showing that reason for terminating her was pretextual to survive summary judgment where only 15 days elapsed between her harassment complaint and regional manager's decision to terminate her and reasonable jury could infer that manager and supervisor knew that employer's transfer policy was discretionary.
|
|||||
| Winskowski v. City of Stephen, No. 05-2777,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When suing for deprivation of a name-clearing hearing, a city employee had to prove that he sought a post-termination hearing before litigation; the employee's failure to do so barred any recovery for his alleged due process violations.
|
|||||
| Mayorga v. Missouri, No. 05-2762,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former inmate claimed that parole officials acted outside their jurisdiction in classifying him as a sex-offender based on unsubstantiated facts. Even so, they still had absolute immunity, as the Parole Board's decisions classifying him were at the heart of its jurisdiction. He also did not establish supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983.
|
|||||
| Nash v. Lappin, No. 05-2285,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Submitted , March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Davis, No. 03-1709,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the district court plainly erred in sentencing defendant based on judge-found facts under a mandatory sentencing regime, resentencing was not warranted under the Sixth Amendment, because defendant could not establish that he would have received a more favorable sentence if the district court had sentenced him under an advisory scheme.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
