 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Pope, No. 05-4234, No. 05-4238, No. 06-1750,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court erred in concluding that the previous action required a grant of summary judgment against the insurance company on the issue of indemnification; the action was remanded for a proceeding to determine whether and to what extent the policy exclusions for criminal and knowingly wrongful conduct applied to the facts at issue.
|
|||||
| Dorholt v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 06-1988,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former employee failed to show that procedural irregularities justified a deferential standard of review of an ERISA administrator's decision to deny benefits; under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the administrator's decision was affirmed and it was not error to consider the lack of objective medical evidence.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Brownlee, No. 06-2304,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's § 1983 action against state parole board and its members was properly dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915A(b) because Ark. Code Ann. § 16701(a)(1) (2006) did not create protectable liberty interest in discretionary parole decisions, and inmate had no protectable liberty interest in board's hearing policy.
|
|||||
| Hobbs v. Foreman, No. 06-3427,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly dismissed retaliatory-disciplinary claim against one defendant given that inmate failed to contest defendants' evidence that he had not exhausted that claim; however, district court erred by dismissing remaining claims as defendants asserted only that retaliatory-discipline claim against one defendant was unexhausted.
|
|||||
| Meredith Corp. v. United States (In re Search Warrants Issued in Connection with Investigation of S. Cent. Career Ctr.), No. 06-3106,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because documents sought by a corporation were no longer filed under seal, the corporation's appeal from the district court's and magistrate judge's denial of its request to unseal documents was moot under U.S. Const. art. III, and the exception for cases capable of repetition, yet evading review did not apply.
|
|||||
| United States v. Perales, No. 06-1423,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
