 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Butler v. Astrue, No. 06-4156,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a claimant's application for benefits under the Social Security Act was affirmed because there was nothing improper in the ALJ's treatment of the treating physician's opinion as substantial evidence supported the conclusion it was inconsistent with the record as a whole.
|
|||||
| Chaffin v. City of Fort Smith, No. 06-1301,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Davison v. City of Minneapolis, No. 06-2368,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of chief's knowledge of union member's protected activities and his expressed displeasure with them, in combination with the proximity of three promotion denials, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the promotion decisions were at least in part motivated by union member's First Amendment protected activities.
|
|||||
| Day v. Emery, No. 06-2123,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Finch v. Miller, No. 06-3790,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's second habeas petition was properly dismissed as time-barred under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations and state-created impediments did not render his petition timely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1)(B) as he failed to show that alleged shortcomings in library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue legal claim.
|
|||||
| Lenz v. Wade, No. 06-3017,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment entered against prison warden in inmate's § 1983 and Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 suit was reversed because evidence did not support district court's finding that he was deliberately indifferent to inmate's safety. Evidence did not establish that warden knew that corrections officers posed substantial risk of serious harm to inmate.
|
|||||
| Obah v. Gonzales, No. 06-1594,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: IJ's finding that an alien did not show that her asylum application was timely was unreviewable under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a)(3). The alien's lack of credibility was a sufficient basis for denial of withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(b)(3) and relief under the CAT; the IJ found that purported corroborating documents were fraudulent.
|
|||||
| Richmond v. Cont'l Cas. Co., No. 06-2440,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of an ERISA action was affirmed because the district court correctly applied the abuse-of-discretion standard of review; while the insurance company's dual role may be "palpable evidence of a conflict of interest," the employee failed to point to any evidence that the conflict caused a serious breach of its fiduciary duty to her.
|
|||||
| Touho v. Gonzales, No. 06-2953,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alien's petition for review of BIA's denial of adjustment of status and hardship waiver was dismissed because such decisions were within Attorney General's discretion, and under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1182(i)(2), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), court lacked jurisdiction to review decisions except for constitutional claims and questions of law, which alien did not raise.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
