 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| All Computers, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 05-1271,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's appeal from a grant of summary judgment of patent noninfringement was not from a final decision under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1295(a)(1) and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the district court did not adjudicate or remove defendant's invalidity and unenforceability counterclaims or certify the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
|
|||||
| Bd. of Trs. of Bay Med. Ctr. v. Humana Military Healthcare Servs., 05-1501,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where hospitals asserted a breach of contract claim against a contractor, the contractor's motions to dismiss or transfer and for reconsideration were properly denied because the hospitals' claim was not a claim for money damages against the Government so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1491(a)(1).
|
|||||
| Caribbean Ispat Ltd. v. United States, 05-1400,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Importer's challenge to international trade court ruling was successful because Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act exception in 19 U.S.C.S. § 1677(7)(G)(ii)(III) required international trade commission to weigh impact of challenged imports against impact of all imports, both fair traded and less than fair value imports, in assessing materiality.
|
|||||
| Charity v. GSA, 06-3089,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: MSPB's decision sustaining the General Service Administration's removal of a transportation operation specialist was affirmed where substantial evidence supported removal rather than reassignment, the specialist failed to show a due process violation, and the evidence showed that he had violated the standard operating procedures.
|
|||||
| Dumarce v. Scarlett, 05-1104,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Takings claim was barred by 28 U.S.C.S. § 2401(a) statute of limitations, which was not tolled because a notice that an Indian beneficiary's land would escheat to a tribe under § 5 of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Act fulfilled the duty of the U.S., Department of the Interior, and Secretary to inform her of facts giving rise to a potential action.
|
|||||
| Gebhardt v. Dep't of the Air Force, 05-3335,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Giannikas v. OPM, 2006-3216,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Decided , May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Grussmark v. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare, L.P., 05-1585,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Decided , May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hinck v. United States, 05-5099,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court of federal claims properly dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the taxpayers' interest abatement claims under 26 U.S.C.S. § 6404(e)(1) because § 6404(h) granted the U.S. Tax Court exclusive jurisdiction to review the IRS's denial of such claims.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
