Norris Thompson v. United States Postal Serv., 847 F.2d 842 (Fed. Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Norris Thompson v. United States Postal Serv., 847 F.2d 842 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a valuable mineral deposit is an occurrence of mineralization of such quantity and quality as to warrant a person of ordinary prudence in the expenditure of time and money in the development of a mine and the extraction of the mineral.”
38 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Reoforce, Inc. v. United States (uscfc, 2014-10-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Reoforce, Inc. v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fed. Cl. · 2014 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a valuable mineral deposit is an occurrence of mineralization of such quantity and quality as to warrant a person of ordinary prudence in the expenditure of time and money in the development of a mine and the extraction of the mineral.
discussed Cited "see" Kemper Watkins v. Department of Defense
MSPB · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bilger v. Department of Justice, 33 M.S.P.R. 602 , 607 (1987) (finding that, once an administrative judge imposes a sanction, the Board ordinarily will not disturb such a determination unless it is shown that the administrative judge abused her discretion or that her ruling adversely affected a party’s substantive rights), aff’d, 847 F.2d 842 (Fed.
cited Cited "see" Dennis Chiappetta v. Dennis Chiappetta, Jr.
MSPB · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bilger v. Department of Justice, 33 M.S.P.R. 602 , 611 (1987), aff’d, 847 F.2d 842 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Vane Minerals (Us), LLC v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Skaw v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 7, 28 (1987) (“When land is closed to location under the mining laws subsequent to the location of a mining claim, the validity of the claim cannot be recognized unless the claim was supported by a valid discovery at the time of the withdrawal.”), aff'd 847 F.2d 842 (Fed.Cir.1988); see also 43 C.F.R. § 3809.100 (a) (“After the date on which the lands are withdrawn from appropriation under the mining laws, BLM will not approve a plan of operations ... until BLM has prepared a mineral examination report to determine whether the mining claim was valid b…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Norris Thompson
v.
United States Postal Service
88-3010.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Apr 27, 1988.
847 F.2d 842
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 58%
Citer courts: Federal Claims (1)

847 F.2d 842

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
Norris THOMPSON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 88-3010.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 27, 1988.

Before FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

The decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (board), affirming the removal of petitioner by the United States Postal Service for failure to comply with explicit instructions of his supervisor to deliver mail, is affirmed on the basis of the initial decision of the administrative judge of the board in Docket No. DA07528710073, which became final on September 28, 1987, when the board by order denied petitioner's petition for review of that decision.

2

Independent review of the opinion, order, and exhibits in the case convinces the court that substantial evidence supports the charge, that there was no harmful procedural error, that the penalty for the offense was authorized and reasonable, and that petitioner's discharge was for the efficiency of the service.