|
| |
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.
|
| |
Federal Courts -
DC Circuit Court and Court of Appeals - March 16, 2007
|
| |
Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Transp. Sec. Admin., No. 06-1093 Consolidated with 06-1101, 06-1103, 06-1107, 06-1108, 06-1114, 06-1124, 06-1125, 06-1129, 06-1130, 06-1135, 06-1137, 06-1252, 06-1253, 06-1254, 06-1255, 06-1256, 06-1257, 06-1258, 06-1259, 06-1260, 06-1261, 06-1263, 06-1264, 06-1265, 06-1266, 06-1267, 06-1268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Carpenters & Millwrights, Local Union 2471 v. NLRB, No. 05-1416 Consolidated with 06-1098,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: NLRB's reversal of ALJ's piercing corporate veil could not stand, 29 U.S.C.S. § 160(e), (f). NLRB, inter alia, failed to identify evidence sufficient to support finding that company had decided to shut down before it began distributing cash to owners, and likewise failed to explain why it rejected evidence that was contrary to that finding.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Lessin v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 06-7067,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Modest arbitration award in investor's favor was not vacated pursuant to 9 U.S.C.S. § 10(a); arbitration panel did not deprive investor of fair hearing by declining to hear from his second expert witness, who opined that broker's notes were backdated, because other evidence allowed conclusion that broker's testimony was credible.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|