 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hendrickson v. VA, 05-3262,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: AJ's decision sustaining the VA's removal of an employee for, inter alia, submitting false documents in order to defraud the agency was affirmed as circumstantial evidence adequately showed that the employee intended to defraud the VA and that he failed to satisfactorily explain the existence of two unsigned medical statements.
|
|||||
| In re Scroggie, 05-1370 (Serial No. 09/401,198),
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In rejecting a patent application as obvious under 35 U.S.C.S. § 103, the PTO Board of Appeals erred in construing the term "generating page data" to mean that web page data was selected because the term "generating" implied the creation and origination of such data. However, the Board properly construed the term "personalized web page."
|
|||||
| Kwik Prods. v. Nat'l Express, Inc., 05-1319, 05-1343,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cross-appeals in a patent infringement action were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court had not resolved or disposed of all aspect of the manufacturers' counterclaim, including the assertion of unenforceability, and as a result, the district court's judgment was nonfinal.
|
|||||
| Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 05-1222,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided , March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Pro-Tech Welding & Fabrication, Inc. v. Lajuett, 05-1395, 05-1411,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided , March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Roberto v. Dep't of the Navy, 05-3043,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: MSPB properly dismissed a former employee's appeal claiming that the Navy had violated his reemployment priority rights for lack of jurisdiction where the Office of Personnel Management had not given its concurrence to the Navy's priority placement program and he failed to show that the Navy failed to timely inform him of his rights.
|
|||||
| Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Mitzi Int'l Handbag & Accessories, Ltd., 05-1342,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided , March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sturdy v. Dep't of the Army, 05-3045,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: MSPB properly exercised jurisdiction over an employee's appeal under 5 C.F.R. § 330.209 because his failure to register for the Reemployment Priority List (RPL) was excused due to misinformation he received from the Army concerning the RPL, in violation of 5 C.F.R. § 330.203(b). Misinformation violated his reemployment priority rights.
|
|||||
| Williams v. VA, 06-3021,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the MSPB's removal of an employee from her employment because the Department of Veterans Affairs' evidence that she received payment for the same travel expenses from it and the union and did not repay the money showed that she used government employment for actual private financial gain.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
