 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AF v. Nicholson, 05-7092,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Principles of equitable tolling, as claimed by a veteran, were not applicable to the time period in 38 U.S.C.S. § 5110(a). Section 5110(a), which expressly precluded an effective date earlier than the filing date, was not a statute of limitations, but merely indicated when disability benefits began.
|
|||||
| Arendi U.S.A., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 05-1170, 05-1171,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided , February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Baker v. United States, 05-5153,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Bautista v. OPM, 06-3009,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even assuming petitioner was not in privity with her husband and therefore her claim for a civil service survivor annuity was not barred by res judicata, she nonetheless bore the burden of showing that the MSPB's decision in his case was incorrect on the merits. She offered no evidence to show his service qualified him for a retirement annuity.
|
|||||
| Contreras v. United States, 05-5108,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided , February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cox v. DOD, 05-3072,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided , February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Digital Control Inc. v. Charles Mach. Works, 05-1128,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Determination patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct was vacated as it could not be ascertained if trial court would have ruled patents unenforceable based on inventor's misrepresentations, if factual finding on intent would survive trial, and if assessment of credibility would have differed if reference to prior patent was cumulative.
|
|||||
| Glock v. Dep't of Agric., 06-3118,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided , February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Logan v. MSPB, 05-3325,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of three year delay of former federal employee's appeal of denial of her grievance, and as she received appeal information in timely fashion, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.S. § 7703(c), Merit Systems Protection Board properly determined that she did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, good cause for filing an untimely appeal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
