 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| L-3 Communs. Sec. & Detection Sys. v. Reveal Imaging Techs., Inc., 06-1136,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 16, 2006, Decided , February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Astaris, LLC v. Fire-Trol Holdings, LLC, 06-1185,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| De Maio v. Dep't of the Treasury, 06-3137,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Forcillo v. Lemond Fitness, Inc., 05-1390,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order denying defendants' motion for attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C.S. § 285 was affirmed where it was not clearly erroneous for district court to find that the case was not exceptional because defendants relied on the same evidence it had previously proffered with its summary judgment motion and there was never a finding of inequitable conduct.
|
|||||
| Mag-Nif Inc. v. Royal Sovereign Int'l, Inc. , 05-1346,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In interpreting contract language, the court could appropriately look to dictionary definitions. Because the accused device, a coin sorting machine, clearly fell outside the scope of the Settlement Agreement, the lower court's ultimate conclusion-- that defendants were not in contempt of its Stipulated Order of Dismissal-- was upheld.
|
|||||
| Worrell v. Dep't of the Navy, 05-3179,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On the MSPB's holding that the employee did not make nonfrivolous allegations that he did not violate a last chance agreement, the Board's reliance on the waiver provision was affirmed, warranting dismissal of his appeal. The matter was reviewed under the standard of 5 U.S.C.S. § 7703(c).
|
|||||
| Butler v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 05-3333,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioners filed a motion to intervene 14 months after MSPB decision, which reversed a decision to deny former spouse's Civil Service Retirement System survivor annuity claim, became final. At that point, MSPB had no further jurisdiction over the case, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.112. Decision denying petitioners' motion to intervene was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Hite v. United States Postal Serv., 05-3268,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed MSPB decision upholding a decision to remove an employee from his position as a part-time regular mail processing clerk for unsatisfactory performance under standard of 5 U.S.C.S. § 7703(c). The AJ considered the relevant Douglas factors and did not err in finding that the removal decision was within the bounds of reasonableness.
|
|||||
| McMillian v. United States Postal Serv., 05-3196,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: MSPB dismissal of petitioner's constructive suspension and discrimination claims was upheld under 5 U.S.C.S. § 7703(c). Conclusion there were no available light-duty assignments consistent with his restrictions had substantial evidence support. MSPB lacked jurisdiction over his constructive suspension claim, and thus over his discrimination claim.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
