 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hoag v. Ark. State Highway & Transp. Dep't, No. 05-1369,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer and coworkers were properly granted summary judgment because the employees did not offer evidence that they were qualified for their positions in order to support a discriminatory discharge claim or evidence of sufficiently severe or pervasive harassment to support a hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983.
|
|||||
| ING Fin. Partners v. Johansen, No. 05-2531,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court erred in permanently enjoining an employee from pursuing discrimination claims in arbitration because the requirement of her registered representative agreement that she arbitrate any dispute arising out of the agreement in accordance with the NASD rules did not require her to first obtain her employer's consent to arbitrate.
|
|||||
| Kohlbek v. City of Omaha, No. 04-2060,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Omaha, Nebraska, employed racial classifications in situations where there was no identified past discrimination, its affirmative action plan, as it applied to promotional decisions, was not narrowly tailored to further goal of remedying past discrimination. Summary judgment in favor of Omaha on reverse discrimination claim was reversed.
|
|||||
| Ochoa-Carrillo v. Gonzales, No. 06-1562,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Section 106(c) of the Real ID Act mandated transfer of an alien's habeas petition from a district court because judicial review in an appellate court was the sole and exclusive means to review an 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(a)(5) order reinstating a prior removal order; thus, the appellate court dismissed the petition because it had reviewed the order.
|
|||||
| Siswanto v. Gonzales, No. 05-2573,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alien was properly denied asylum because his robbery by attackers who used anti-Chinese statements and the fact that his family resided in Indonesia without incident did not establish past persecution and a country report showing a decrease in racially-motivated attacks did not show a likelihood of future persecution.
|
|||||
| United States v. Mullins, No. 05-2420,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1), argued that the government did not prove that the starter gun would expel a projectile, or that it could readily be converted to do so, but the testimony of the government's firearms expert based upon his visual examination was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
|
|||||
| United States v. Ruiz, No. 05-1761, No. 05-1762, No. 05-1804, No. 05-1805, No. 05-1913, No. 05-2088,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants were convicted on narcotics and weapons charges under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924 and 21 U.S.C.S. §§ 841 and 846 during a reverse-sting operation, their convictions and sentences were affirmed because, inter alia, sufficient evidence supported their convictions and they failed to show juror bias or sentencing entrapment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
