 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cameron v. DOJ, 06-3109,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Decided , January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hines v. MSPB, 05-3334,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner did not meet 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b) time limit for an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The AJ did not abuse judicial discretion in ruling that a physician's note, combined with petitioner's letter, failed to explain how the illness prevented him from timely filing an appeal or requesting an extension of time to appeal.
|
|||||
| Holley v. OPM, 05-3338,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Decided , January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Smalls v. United States, 05-1413,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Decided , January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Summit Tech., Inc. v. Nidek Co., 05-1292,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellees prevailed in a patent infringement action, a cost award to appellees under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1920 was subject to reduction since computer animations and graphic illustrations were explanatory rather than exemplifications, certain copying costs were improperly estimated, and certain deposition costs were not shown to be necessary.
|
|||||
| Young v. Dep't of the Army, 06-3107,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 26, 2006, Decided , January 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Birmingham v. Robotics Inc., 06-1035,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Genes Indus. v. Advanced Components Specialist, Inc., 06-1039,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
