 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Giles v. United States, 2006-5120,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The United States Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a qui tam plaintiff's claim as to money that was refunded to the federal government, where the claim fell squarely under 31 U.S.C.S. § 3730(d)(2). 31 U.S.C.S. § 3732(a) exclusively gave jurisdiction over the action to the district courts.
|
|||||
| O. Ahlborg & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 2007-5038,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2007, Decided , March 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Polypro, Inc. v. Addison, 2006-1497,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Patent dispute was remanded to district court where the appellate court ruled that summary judgment should have been denied in the presence of genuine issues of material fact as to when the patented bags were "ready for patenting" before a critical date, as required under the on sale bar under 35 U.S.C.S. § 282.
|
|||||
| Toyama v. MSPB, 2006-3281,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error for the Merit Systems Protection Board to dismiss the former employee's administrative appeal as untimely because the employee did not receive the notice required for mixed complaints after her claim before the EEOC was dismissed, as set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(d), and the Board should have addressed the appeal on the merits.
|
|||||
| Wormley v. Dep't of the Treasury, 20 06-3413,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A government employee's termination from employment was properly affirmed by the United States Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Board's decision was affirmed, under the standards of 5 U.S.C.S. § 7703(c). The employee showed a propensity for violence and hostility that would impair her employment.
|
|||||
| Zgonc v. DOD, 2007-3039,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the MSPB's dismissal of petitioner's appeal based on her having raised the same issues in an earlier appeal. Petitioner only reasserted issues decided by the Board's holding in the first appeal, which the appellate court affirmed. Res judicata applied to the instant appeal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
