Laura O. Sledge v. Dep't of Just., 873 F.2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Laura O. Sledge v. Dep't of Just., 873 F.2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“he government may not now enforce its preferred interpretation of contract terms it alone drafted because of the doctrine of contra proferentem.”
32 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Richardson v. United States (uscfc, 2021-11-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Richardson v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
he government may not now enforce its preferred interpretation of contract terms it alone drafted because of the doctrine of contra proferentem.
discussed Cited "see" Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton International, Inc.
SCOTUS · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See 959 F. 2d 948 , 949, and n. 1 (CA Fed. 1992). [2] Morton Thiokol, Inc. v. Witco Chemical Corp., No. 84-5685 (ED La., June 22, 1988), App. 10, 24-31, 36. [3] Morton Thiokol, Inc. v. Argus Chemical Corp., 11 USPQ 2d 1152 (CA Fed. 1989), judgt. order reported at 873 F. 2d 1451 (CA Fed. 1989) (nonprecedential).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Laura O. Sledge
v.
Department of Justice
88-3470.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Apr 7, 1989.
873 F.2d 1451
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 58%
Citer courts: Federal Claims (1)

873 F.2d 1451

Unpublished Disposition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issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
Laura O. SLEDGE, Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent.

No. 88-3470.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 7, 1989.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and FRIEDMAN and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION

1

The decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (board), No. DA07528810254, denying Laura O. Sledge's (Sledge's) petition for review of the May 25, 1988 initial decision dismissing her appeal without prejudice, is affirmed.

OPINION

2

The issue on appeal is whether the board abused its discretion in dismissing Sledge's appeal without prejudice. It is manifest that no abuse occurred. The administrative judge correctly stated that he may not stay an appeal for an indefinite period, cf. Johnson v. Department of the Treasury, 721 F.2d 361, 363-64 (Fed.Cir.1983), yet preserved Sledge's opportunity to participate in her appeal by dismissing without prejudice.

3

Sledge's arguments concerning the possible consequence of failing to comply with the board's final order pending judicial review are not properly before us.