 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bagunas v. United States Postal Serv., 05-3246,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the context of 5 C.F.R. § 353.103(b), the court concluded that an employee was not entitled to restoration if the agency reasonably believed it was discharging him for a cause unrelated to the injury. AJ's conclusion that the termination was not substantially related to the injury was supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Faciane v. United States Postal Serv., 05-3209,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. OPM, 05-3364,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Annuitant took affirmative steps to discontinue survival benefits for his ex-spouse after divorce. Such actions were fundamentally inconsistent with the intent to continue to provide such benefits. The court thus concluded that the MSPB's decision to affirm the denial of survivor benefits was supported by substantial evidence, 5 U.S.C.S. § 7703(c).
|
|||||
| In re Innovation Law Group, Ltd., 2006-1170,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided , March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jordan v. DOL, 05-3385,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's employer was USPS. Petitioner did not allege that he was employed by the Department of Labor or that he was an applicant for employment with that Department. Accordingly, he failed to raise a claim under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 against "an employer" as required by 38 U.S.C.S. § 4311(a).
|
|||||
| Morton v. United States Postal Serv., 06-3002,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: MSPB properly decided that it did not have jurisdiction over the employee's appeal on the ground of res judicata. Because she previously brought an appeal of her removal and a final decision was rendered on that cause of action, she was precluded under the doctrine of res judicata from bringing the present claim involving the same operative facts.
|
|||||
| Nunn v. DOI, 05-3237,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided , March 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Parsons v. United States, 05-5168,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: U.S. Ct. Fed. Cl. R. 59 permitted reconsideration for one of three reasons: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) previously unavailable evidence was available; or (3) the motion was necessary to prevent manifest injustice. No such reason justified reversal of denial of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in his tax-related case.
|
|||||
| Pharr v. MSPB, 05-3165,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because of his probationary status at time of termination, petitioner had no property interest in his employment and thus no valid due process claim. As such, the court affirmed MSPB's Final Order denying review of its Initial Decision dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. MSPB's appellate jurisdiction was limited by 5 U.S.C.S. § 7701(a).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
