 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boumediene v. Bush, No. 05-5062 Consolidated with 05-5063, No. 05-5064 Consolidated with 05-5095, 05-5096, 05-5097, 05-5098, 05-5099, 05-5100, 05-5101, 05-5102, 05-5103, 05-5104, 05-5105, 05-5106, 05-5107, 05-5108, 05-5109, 05-5110, 05-5111, 05-5112, 05-5113, 05-5114, 05-5115, 05-5116,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Chappell-Johnson v. Powell, No. 04-5426,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of employer against the employee's Title VII and ADEA claims was reversed. Given the flexible nature of the prima facie burden for age and racial discrimination cases, the employee could, depending upon what she uncovered during discovery, have been able to prevail even if the employer never filled the position she sought.
|
|||||
| Demos v. Comm'r, No. 05-1324,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the inmate, wile incarcerated, had filed at least three civil actions or appeals that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, in his suit against the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(g) he had to show cause as to why he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.
|
|||||
| In re Madison Guar. S&L, Division No. 94-1,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for reimbursement of attorneys' fees incurred under 28 U.S.C.S. § 593(f)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was denied because petitioner failed to show which part of a flat fee paid to his attorney was applied after an independent counsel was appointed or that fees would not have been incurred but for the requirements of the Act.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Quander, No. 05-5156,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court's dismissal of a former probationer's action seeking to enjoin the application of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 was affirmed because the collection of his DNA did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and D.C. Code § 22-4151 did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
|
|||||
| Mistick PBT v. Chao, No. 04-5340,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though DOL's application of conformance regulations in 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(3) was subject to judicial review under APA, DOL did not act arbitrarily in setting wages for power equipment operators at rate set for bulldozer operators as agency precedent was that these operators had unique skill sets, making them different from other workers.
|
|||||
| New York v. EPA, No. 03-1380 Consolidated with Nos. 03-1381, 03-1383, 03-1390, 03-1402, 03-1453, 03-1454, 04-1029, 04-1035, 04-1064, 05-1234, 05-1287,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: EPA's equipment replacement provision, 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(cc), violated 42 U.S.C.S. § 7411(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act as it was contrary to Congress's limitation directing that only changes that increased emissions triggered new source review (NSR) and it allowed equipment replacements resulting in non-de minimis emission increases to avoid NSR.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
