 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 05-1221, 05-1428,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As patent holder established a relationship with its exclusive licensee, which sold product in Florida, and with which patent holder coordinated cease and desist letters and infringement litigation, patent holder purposefully availed itself of Florida law. District court could exercise personal jurisdiction over it in accordance with due process.
|
|||||
| Cain v. MSPB, 06-3036,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Decided , April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Carroll-Harris v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 06-3080,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Decided , April 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Floyd v. MSPB, 06-3008,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's appointment was subject to a one year probationary period, so 5 U.S.C.S. § 7511(a)(1)(A)(i) did not provide the MSPB with jurisdiction. His prior service ended on March 15, 1991, and thus was not "current continuous service." Because he did not meet the statutory definition of "employee," the MSPB lacked jurisdiction over his appeal.
|
|||||
| Jordan v. MSPB, 05-3285,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lawson v. Dep't of the Air Force, 06-3041,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying a former employee's petition for enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement was affirmed because the employee, who bore the burden of proving a breach, failed to produce the agreement. The court could not address discrimination claims, raised for the first time on appeal.
|
|||||
| Lloyd v. Dep't of the Army, 06-3003,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although living quarters allowance funds were in petitioner's possession, he did not own them outright and government retained property interest in them; government's statutory authority under 5 U.S.C.S. § 5922(b) to recover those funds by setoff against petitioner's pay did not alter its interest in them, so funds were government property.
|
|||||
| Pepo v. Dep't of the Treasury, 05-3280,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.S. § 7513(a), an IRS employee was properly terminated after releasing unpaid liens. The charged misconduct occurred, there was a nexus between the misconduct and the objective of promoting the efficiency of the IRS, and the penalty of removal was appropriate based on the employee's actions.
|
|||||
| Rasing v. Dep't of the Navy, 05-3053,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, April 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: MSPB lacked jurisdiction to hear employee's claim that Department of the Navy violated his reemployment rights when it gave a job he lost in a RIF to another person because Department promoted someone it already employed, and 5 C.F.R. § 330.205(c) allowed it to promote internal candidates before it hired people from its reemployment priority list.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
