 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Amiri v. Sheraton Operating Corp., No. 05-7130,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. STB, No. 05-1030,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Surface Transportation Board's heavy reliance of the company's stand-alone railroad upon cross-over traffic was not arbitrary and capricious where the Board's explanation for its decision to allow cross-over traffic as a simplifying mechanism was both reasonable and intelligibly explained in accordance with 49 U.S.C.S. § 10101(15).
|
|||||
| Chehalis Power Generating, LLC v. FERC, No. 06-1055,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cota v. United States Supreme All Courts, No. 06-5024,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Covad Communs. Co. v. FCC, No. 05-1095, Consolidated with 05-1100, 05-1101, 05-1108, 05-1110, 05-1122, 05-1130, 05-1133, 05-1137, 05-1224,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: FCC properly implemented unbundling provisions of Telecommunications Act of 1966 by unbundling network elements for switches, transport trunks, and local loops because FCC, offering reasoned explanation, found impairment where it would be uneconomic for reasonably efficient competitive local exchange carrier to compete without unbundled elements.
|
|||||
| Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, No. 01-1129 Consolidated with 02-1080,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, No. 00-1066,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. NLRB, No. 04-1411 Consolidated with 05-1027, 05-1039,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Fashion Valley Mall, LLC. v. NLRB, No. 04-1411. Consolidated with 05-1027 & 05-1039,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where no California court had squarely decided whether a shopping center owner could lawfully ban from its premises speech of union members urging the public to boycott a tenant, the court certified the question to the California Supreme Court in order to determine whether the owner had in fact violated 29 U.S.C.S. § 158(a)(1) of the NLRA.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
