 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Balboa v. Nicholson, 20 06-7374,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 38 U.S.C.S. § 7292, the court did not have jurisdiction to address the veteran's challenges to the factual findings made by the Board of Veterans' Appeals and the court could not entertain a challenge of the Board's application of the law to the facts. The veteran's appeal was thus dismissed.
|
|||||
| Baney v. DOJ, 20 07-3008,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee failed to show reversible error, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.S. § 7703(c), in the MSPB's dismissal of his moot appeal under the USERRA because, once the agency reinstated his military leave, which it had erroneously charged him for non-workdays, it unilaterally gave him the only relief the MSPB or court could have granted.
|
|||||
| Gen. Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. v. Gates, 2007-1119,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided , February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Bose Corp., 06-1173,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of trademark registration of a proposed speaker design based on res judicata was affirmed because parties and marks were same in both proceedings, the court had previously determined the merits of the claim--i.e., the functionality of the design--and none of the alleged changed circumstances warranted barring the application of res judicata.
|
|||||
| Judd v. United States, 2007-5055,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided , February 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Moody v. MSPB, 20 06-3432,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The MSPB properly dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C.S. § 7701(a), an employee's appeal from her alleged constructive removal because her demotion from a probationary position, the agency's adherence to a strict leave policy, and an unpleasant work environment would not have coerced a reasonable employee to resign.
|
|||||
| Plante v. Nicholson, 20 06-7281,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Simmons v. SBA, 2006-3415,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Merit Systems Protection Board properly under 5 U.S.C.S. § 7703(c) found that former employee's claims of constructive removal and of an invalid prior settlement were barred because based on collateral estoppel, the claims were within scope of settlement agreement and a prior court action concluded after actual litigation that settlement was valid.
|
|||||
| Snowton v. United States, 20 06-5146,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of federal claims properly dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, an individual's tort claims against the U.S. and claims under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Privacy Act, and Freedom of Information Act, which did not create a substantive cause of action.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
