 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., No. 05-3100,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1447(d) to review a district court's order remanding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction an employee's state whistleblower claim against an employer. The remand order was not a final order or collateral order appealable under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291.
|
|||||
| Goodin v. United States Postal Inspection Serv., No. 05-2388,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Postal worker's breach of contract claim against Postal Service under Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 failed because statute did not enable parties to escape exclusive jurisdiction provided by Contract Disputes Act (CDA).
|
|||||
| Price v. Xerox Corp., No. 05-3398,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer and benefit plan administrator won summary judgment on a disabled worker's suit under ERISA, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1001 et seq., claiming a wrongful denial of benefits because worker's claim that level 2 internal appeal was improper based solely on its 60-day appeal period lacked merit and worker thus had failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
|
|||||
| Tindell v. Barnhart, No. 05-2873,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claimant was not entitled to social security benefits when ALJ did not err in giving greater weight to consultative opinion from non-examining psychologist than to that of claimant's licensed social worker and examining psychologist. ALJ sufficiently explained inconsistencies that led him to give greater weight to consultative opinion.
|
|||||
| United States v. Love, No. 05-2443,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 70-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm was not unreasonable and, for purposes of sentencing, the district court was entitled to rely on the witness's unobjected-to hearsay statements that defendant pointed a gun at them.
|
|||||
| United States v. Seifert, No. 05-2849,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's arson conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 844(i) was upheld over claim that court erred in admitting a security camera videotape that expert had digitally enhanced and lightened which tied defendant to offense because defendant failed to show clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion in admitting tape or substantial effect on jury verdict.
|
|||||
| United States v. Smith, No. 03-2339,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On a post-Booker remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, an appeals court vacated a 324-month sentence that had been imposed under the USSG for plain error because defendant demonstrated a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a more lenient sentence than that required by the USSG had it been permitted to do so.
|
|||||
| United States v. Villalobos-Delgado, No. 05-2501,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Whittaker, No. 04-3725,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Error in applying the guidelines as mandatory was not harmless and defendant was granted resentencing because the record did not indicate that the sentence would have been the same if the guidelines were applied in an advisory manner, given the district court's statement that it was doing what it could by sentencing at the bottom of the range.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
