|
| |
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 - May 15 - May 16, 2006
|
| |
ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. FERC, No. 04-1102 Consolidated with 04-1103, 04-1104, 04-1140, 04-1142, 04-1143, 04-1160, 05-1204, 05-1217, 05-1218, 05-1219, 05-1223, 05-1226, 05-1232, 05-1245, 05-1303,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., No. 05-7002,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Equitable estoppel from raising statute of limitations defense was unavailable to appellant, as appellant, in full knowledge of basis for a cause of action, had ample time to file claim before statutory limitation period ended in March 2003. Appellant admitted to being aware of basis for a price fixing suit by, at latest, December 6, 2001.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Scepter, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 04-1267, Consolidated with 04-1362,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, May 16, 2006, Argued , May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The company's petition for review was denied, and the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement was granted because the NLRB correctly held in a 2004 order that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the company's post-enforcement request for relief from a 2000 court order. The company's objection to the 2000 order was untimely.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|