ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Sixth Circuit Cases

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Federal Judiciary

: Sixth Circuit Cases

6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Feb. 11, 2008 (No Ky. Decisions)

By Michael Stevens

ADVERTISEMENTS

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

OpinionShort Title/District
08a0069p.06 USA v. Thompson
    Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08b0003p.06 In re: Wells
    U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Grand Rapids
08a0070p.06 Li v. Mukasey
    Immigration & Naturalization Service
08a0071p.06 Dearth v. Mukasey
    Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Stephen Dearth and the Second Amendment Foundation appeal the venue-based dismissal-without-prejudice of their action. The plaintiffs had brought suit in federal court in Ohio to enjoin the enforcement of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922 that prohibit non-residents of the United States from receiving or selling firearms for non-sporting purposes. Because the plaintiffs requested the dismissal-without-prejudice as an alternative to transfer, however, the district court?s order is an unappealable voluntary dismissal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

08a0072p.06 Quick Communications v. MI Bell Tele Co
    Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. The Michigan Public Services Commission ordered Quick Communications Incorporated and Michigan Bell Telephone Company (d/b/a AT&T) to amend their interconnection agreement to conform with the Commission?s most recently approved service rates. Quick brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the terms of the interconnection agreement, the Sierra-Mobile doctrine, and the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution prohibited the Commission?s action. The district court granted defendants? motion for summary judgment on all of Quick?s
claims. Quick now appeals.

08a0073p.06 Eady v. Morgan
    Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
HABEAS CORPUS
08a0074p.06 USA v. Goins
    Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0075p.06 USA v. Bell
    Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
08a0076p.06 USA v. King
    Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0077p.06 Simmons v. Kapture
    Western District of Michigan at Marquette
HABEAS CORPUS
08a0078p.06 USA v. Tate
    Western District of Tennessee at Memphis

    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS

OpinionShort Title/District
08a0101n.06 Meyer v. AmerisourceBergen
    Northern District of Ohio at Toledo

Full post as published by Sixth Circuit Cases on February 17, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0051 secs (from cache 11/02/26 17:48:43)