 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cordry v. Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc., No. 05-2778,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parties are generally free to contract as they wish, and courts will enforce contracts according to their plain meaning, unless induced by fraud, duress, or undue influence. By its plain language, an addendum provided the lender discretion to lend less than 60 or 65 percent of the "NADA" value on any given used home. The lender did not breach it.
|
|||||
| Parkman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., No. 05-2471,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Richter v. ITW Ransburg Electrostatic Sys. Group, 05-2832,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The corporations were properly granted summary judgment on the design defect and negligence claims of a worker and wife because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the corporations proximately caused the worker's injuries from an electrical shock.
|
|||||
| State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nat'l Research Ctr. for College & Univ. Admissions, No. 05-1588,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's summary judgment in favor of an insurer was affirmed in part, but reversed in part because under Missouri law, a duty to defend arose even though claims beyond coverage were present with potentially insured claims. Therefore, the insurer had a duty to defend against an "Assurance" presented by the Missouri Attorney General.
|
|||||
| Tenge v. Phillips Modern Ag Co, No. 05-2803,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of an employee based on the employee's admitted consensual sexual conduct with an employer or supervisor did not amount to discrimination on the basis of the employee's status as a man or a woman; rather, it was based on the employee's own actions and therefore was not in violation of 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2(a)(1) of Title VII.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lee, No. 05-3810,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not err in denying a downward departure because defendant's vehement denial that he possessed a firearm and drug quantities above the minimums in the indictment required the government to present evidence establishing those facts and showed that he did not adequately accept responsibility or express remorse.
|
|||||
| United States v. Littrell, No. 05-2647,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| United States v. Mitchell, No. 03-2588,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not commit plain error in sentencing because defendant, in his plea agreement, waived his right to have a jury determine an enhancement issue by stipulating to an increase for possession of a firearm, did not object to the presentence report's description of the offense conduct, and waived his appeal right.
|
|||||
| United States v. Peltier, No. 05-3194,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion, which claimed defendant was illegally convicted under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1111 and 1114 for murder of FBI agents on Indian reservation on basis trial court lacked jurisdiction, was properly denied because former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) was inappropriate vehicle to challenge jurisdiction over underlying conviction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
