 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arnold v. Astrue, No. 06-1939,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Social Security Commissioner properly denied mother's application for supplemental security income for child because although child had organic brain dysfunction, evidence introduced at hearing, including child's academic capability, interactions with others, and medical records, showed that he led largely normal life and was not disabled.
|
|||||
| Clay v. Norris, No. 06-1157,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 2254 habeas petition was properly denied. Independent and adequate state ground existed to bar federal habeas review. Inmate's Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 post-conviction relief petition was dismissed because he did not comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2 abstracting rule. Such a dismissal was regularly followed practice in Arkansas.
|
|||||
| United States v. Feemster, No. 06-2059,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentence of 120 months of imprisonment and eight years of supervised release for convictions of two counts of distribution of crack cocaine constituted an abuse of a sentencing court's discretion because it gave too much weight to defendant's age and other factors, and it ignored the mandate of 28 U.S.C.S. § 994(h) regarding career offenders.
|
|||||
| United States v. Meyer, No. 06-2961,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A defendant's probation was properly revoked because he violated both conditions of his probation by using unlawful drugs and by leaving the jurisdiction without permission. Defendant's unlawful use of drugs was properly established by sweat patch results, which were a reliable means for determining whether a condition of probation was violated.
|
|||||
| United States v. Petruk, No. 06-2665, No. 06-2666,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were properly ordered to pay restitution under 18 U.S.C.S. § 3663A for total amount of "Section 8" subsidies that they had received. Defendants were ineligible to receive any subsidies because although 42 U.S.C.S. § 1437f and its regulations did not explicitly say so, HUD precluded payment of subsidies for owner-occupied housing.
|
|||||
| Vajdl v. Mesabi Acad. of Kidspeace, Inc., No. 06-2482,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly entered against employee as to her Title VII sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge claims. No disputed factual issues were raised as to whether employer intentionally created intolerable work conditions or whether co-workers' harassment was so severe or pervasive as to alter employment conditions.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
