 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 2007-1339,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 15, 2007, Decided , May 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lutz v. United States Postal Serv., 06-3154,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agency's breach of settlement agreement with employee was material because the negative documents and statements submitted to Office of Personnel Management (OPM) contrary to terms of agreement prejudiced disability proceedings. OPM explicitly relied on supervisor's statements as one of two factors in denying the employee's request.
|
|||||
| Pittman v. DOJ, 2006-3263,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's argument that the AJ failed to consider his claim under 38 U.S.C.S. § 4312(a) lacked merit. Substantial evidence supported that he was reemployed in his previous position at the agency following military service. MSPB lacked jurisdiction to consider his improper removal claims, and denial of those claims on the merits was in error.
|
|||||
| Rethaber v. MSPB, 2006-3311,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: MSPB properly dismissed an employee's appeal of her demotion for lack of jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C.S. § 7512(3), (4) because her transfer proposal form, which stated that she accepted a lower paying position under threat of termination, showed that she voluntarily and without agency coercion accepted a demotion based on her performance.
|
|||||
| Cent. Admixture Pharm. Servs. v. Advanced Cardiac Solutions, P.C., 2006-1307,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Decided , May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cent. Admixture Pharm. Servs. v. Advanced Cardiac Solutions, P.C., 2006-1307,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Decided , May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| General Mills, Inc. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 2006-1569, -1606,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's patent infringement claim was properly dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) against defendant, who became successor to its predecessor's rights under plaintiff's settlement agreement and covenant not to sue before commencing the allegedly infringing activities and did not lose that status through a sale of he predecessor's assets.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. Nicholson, 06-7001,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A veteran was erroneously required to show prejudice from an alleged error in providing a notice required by the VCAA, since any such notice error created a presumption of prejudice and VA had the burden to show that the error did not affect the essential fairness of the adjudication of the veteran's claim.
|
|||||
| Simmons v. Nicholson, 2006-7092,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, May 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The veterans court properly reversed BVA's denial of service connection after the court placed the burden on the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish that a first-element error in a notice that VA was required to give the veteran under the VCAA was not prejudicial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
