|
| |
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 -
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals - January 18, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2006-1263, 2006-1264,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 2006-7052, 2006-7061,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: VA's regulations interpreting 38 U.S.C.S. §§ 1311(a)(2) and 1318 were affirmed on review because the retroactivity rationale was persuasive; if a veteran, immediately before his death, could not secure retroactive compensation for the required period, it was reasonable to refuse to treat a survivor as having shown that the veteran was eligible.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Transclean Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc., 06-1077,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where a patent holder was found to be bound by its admission, as part of its litigation strategy, that an alleged infringer and its customers were in privity, the patent holder was judicially estopped from pursuing infringement claims against the customers, where it already obtained a judgment against the alleged infringing manufacturer.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
