 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Info. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. United States, 04-5151, 04-5154,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation, providing services to government through cost-reimbursement contracts, was not entitled to reimbursement for payments to sole shareholder to cover state income taxes on dividends paid to her from corporation, as shareholder was not contracting entity and taxes from which contracting entity was exempt were not allowable costs.
|
|||||
| Lacavera v. Dudas, 05-1204,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: PTO's decision to grant attorney limited recognition was not an abuse of discretion, as it properly found full registration inconsistent with the legal restrictions imposed by visa which provided time and work restrictions; it was reasonable for PTO to interpret legal authority to render service as being a necessary qualification for registration.
|
|||||
| Newell v. MSPB, 05-3235,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Merit Systems Protection Board's ALJ ordered former employee to show cause for filing appeal deemed untimely under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(1). While his response did not state explicitly that he had not received timely notification of his removal, as suggestion of lack of notice was implicit in his response, he was entitled to hearing on timeliness.
|
|||||
| Diversified Specialties, Inc. v. Maytag Corp., 05-1364,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Decided , February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jireh Consulting, Inc. v. United States, 05-5040,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's individual claims sounded in tort and contract. Insofar as her claims sounded in tort, they were barred by the rule that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to entertain tort claims, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1491(a)(1). As for breach of contract claims, her case did not fall within an exception to the rule against shareholder standing.
|
|||||
| Smith v. United States, 05-5146,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sys. Div. v. Teknek Elecs., Ltd., 05-1081, 05-1094,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 7, 2006, Decided , February 7, 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. |
