 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Wagner v. Gonzales, No. 05-5463,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Fitzgerald v. District of Columbia Hous. Fin. Agency, No. 05-7132,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| AFGE v. FLRA, No. 05-1268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Bureau changed firearms policy, did not replace remedial hours with equivalent, and deficiency would result in termination, the change had reasonably foreseeable greater than de-minimis effect on working conditions so as to require bargaining under 5 U.S.C.S. § 7106; de-minimis finding of Federal Labor Relations Authority was unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Spinelli v. Goss, No. 05-5270,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former federal employee's claim under the FTCA for work-related PTSD should have been dismissed because the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) provided the exclusive remedy for such an injury, and the Secretary of Labor had determined that FECA covered the condition, which was not subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C.S. § 8128(b).
|
|||||
| Tootle v. Sec'y of the Navy, No. 04-5409,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Action of enlisted member seeking review of finding of ineligibility for medical retirement was improperly dismissed because district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1331 and complaint stated claim under APA with his sole remedy being declaratory or injunctive relief that was not negligible in comparison with potential monetary recovery.
|
|||||
| UFCW Local 204 v. NLRB, No. 05-1004, Consolidated with 05-1131 and 05-1229,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: NLRB's findings were supported by substantial evidence under 29 U.S.C.S. § 160(f) that employer violated 29 U.S.C.S. § 158(a)(1), (a)(3) where it established an overly broad no solicitation and no distribution policy and demonstrated a general disregard for employees' fundamental rights under NLRA so that a broad cease and desist order was proper.
|
|||||
| United States v. Lowe, No. 05-3138,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Whatley v. District of Columbia, No. 05-7001,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Minor and guardian were not entitled under 20 U.S.C.S. § 1415 to fees in excess of "caps" imposed by § 140 of D.C. Appropriations Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-96, 115 Stat. 923, because § 140 was clearly intended to indefinitely limit fees for IDEA proceedings and limit did not violate separation of powers by interfering with judicial prerogatives.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
