 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Agro Dutch Indus. v. United States, 05-1288,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of International Trade improperly dismissed appellant's action challenging administrative review of an antidumping order for lack of jurisdiction because both parties represented that there were still unliquidated entries that were subject to the administrative review; moreover, the case was never properly disposed of on the merits.
|
|||||
| Garcia v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 04-3442,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under 5 U.S.C.S. §§ 7701, 7512, once a claimant makes non-frivolous claims of MSPB jurisdiction, i.e., claims that, if proven, establish MSPB jurisdiction, then the claimant has a right to a hearing. There, she must prove jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence. Case was remanded to consider issue of non-frivolousness of the employee's claim.
|
|||||
| Griffiths v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 05-3184,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Igbinadolor v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 05-1554,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Scroggie, 05-1353,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jet Airways, Inc. v. Jet Enters. Pvt, Ltd., 05-1473,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Decided , February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| King v. Dep't of the Navy, 05-3362,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former federal employee could not receive back pay because, under 5 C.F.R. § 550.805(c), she was unavailable for performance of her duties for reasons unrelated to unjustified personnel action. She had been required to obtain a security clearance to begin work, but refused to answer two questions on requisite questionnaire either "yes" or "no."
|
|||||
| King v. Dep't of the Navy, 05-3249,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a prior judgment rendered by the Merit Systems Protection Board determined that litigation documents were not covered by a settlement agreement under which the Navy agreed not to disclose a former employee's removal action from her personnel file, she was collaterally estopped from relitigating this issue in her fifth appeal to the Board.
|
|||||
| Mateo v. MSPB, 05-3250,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence, under 5 U.S.C.S. § 7703(c), supported Merit Systems Protection Board's decision that employee's appeal was untimely filed where affidavit of agency official showed that decision was mailed to employee's current address by first class mail and was not returned, and employee failed to rebut presumption that he received decision.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
