 |
|
 |
|
|
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. DOJ, No. 05-5022,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Government was granted summary affirmance of summary judgment, which was granted in its favor in a requester's action concerning the disclosure of information, because the government's declarations showed that its search for responsive records was adequate and the requester failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to later discovered documents.
|
|||||
| In re Madison Guar. S&L, Division No. 94-1,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former White House employee's petition for attorneys' fees under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, was denied because she did not pass the "but for" test of 28 U.S.C.S. § 593(f)(1).
|
|||||
| In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, No. 05-5168,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A magistrate's ruling that several documents were privileged was not given preclusive effect in a subsequent proceeding to compel a third party's compliance with a subpoena because there was no showing that the same documents were at issue, and there was an ambiguity as to whether the issue of privilege was actually decided.
|
|||||
| LaRouche's Comm. for a New Bretton Woods v. FEC, No. 04-1311,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: FEC order to repay federal matching funds, pursuant to the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, was not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion under the APA because the campaign committee offered no evidence establishing the basis or reasonableness of mark-up charges paid to vendors affiliated with its candidate.
|
|||||
| Love v. Johanns, No. 04-5449, Consolidated with 05-5084,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Class certification was denied under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) in a discrimination case filed by female farmers against the United States Department of Agriculture because the commonality requirement was not met; the farmers failed to "bridge the gap" between their individual claims and the "common policy" requirement.
|
|||||
| AFGE, Local 1302 v. FLRA, No. 05-1168,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, March 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal Labor Relations Authority's finding that no unfair labor practice occurred in the non-selection of a union member was supported by substantial evidence, including the warden's testimony that the member did not meet neutral criteria for promotion and was not in the group of corrupt employees whose careers the warden allegedly would not help.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
