 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Colida v. Panasonic Corp., 2006-1339,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Decided , May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cruz v. Nicholson, 2006-7143,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Decided , May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Davis v. Nicholson, 2006-7043,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Decided , May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claimant's appeal from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was dismissed where the notice of appeal was untimely, under 38 U.S.C.S. § 7292(a) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), because it was filed 244 days after the entry of judgment, and claimant's failure to file timely a notice of appeal could not have been waived.
|
|||||
| Gilda Indus. v. United States, 05-1384,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of International Trade erred in dismissing a toasted bread importer's complaint--seeking refund of duties paid due to a retaliation list--on the basis that the 19 U.S.C.S. § 2416(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) exception to the "review and revise" requirement of § 2416(b)(2)(C) applied as a matter of law. Record was insufficient to support that conclusion.
|
|||||
| Hemphill v. P&G, 2006-1300,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Decided , May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were granted summary affirmance of an order, which denied plaintiff's motion for final judgment on patent infringement claims, because the district court's previous order granting defendants a summary judgment of noninfringement had been affirmed and, thus, no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal existed.
|
|||||
| In re Echostar Communs. Corp., MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET NOS. 803, 805,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted a writ of mandamus to require district court to vacate order compelling blanket production of records from in-house and outside counsel advising defendants who were relying on advice-of-counsel defense to willful patent infringement because production of legal documents that were not communicated to defendants was abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| In re Hyundai Motor Am., MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET NO. 818,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Decided , May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manufacturer was denied a writ of mandamus directing a district court to vacate its order granting an LLC's motion to disqualify the manufacturer's counsel in a patent infringement action because the manufacturer failed to clearly and indisputably show clear error in the district court's findings of fact and application of the facts to the law.
|
|||||
| King Pharm., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET NO. 821,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Decided , May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lawrence v. OPM, 05-3036,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 1, 2006, Decided , May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
