green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.9 score
“as long as the agency's methodology and procedures are reasonable means of effectuating the statutory purpose, and there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency's conclusions, the court will not. . . question the agency's methodology”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Elkem Metals Co. v. United States
as long as the agency's methodology and procedures are reasonable means of effectuating the statutory purpose, and there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency's conclusions, the court will not. . . question the agency's methodology
cited
Cited "see"
Debra Vinson v. United States Postal Service
See Moriarty v. Office of Personnel Management, 47 M.S.P.R. 280 , 287 (1991), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1202 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Debra Vinson v. United States Postal Service
See Moriarty v. Office of Personnel Management, 47 M.S.P.R. 280 , 287 (1991), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1202 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Companhia Paulista De Ferro-Ligas v. United States
See Cemex, S.A. v. United States, 16 CIT 251 , 261, 790 F. Supp. 290, 299 (1992) (noting that “ [t] o require findings of underselling would be inconsistent with the proposition that price suppression or depression is sufficient”) aff'd without op., 989 F.2d 1202 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Boeing Co. v. United States
See Gorenstein Enter., Inc. v. Quality Care-USA, Inc., 874 F.2d 431, 436 (7th Cir.1989) (the patentee should be compensated not only for “the risk of default,” but also for "the loss of the use of their money”); Brunswick Corp. v. United States, 36 Fed.Cl. 204, 218-19 (1996) (patentee is “entitled to receive that measure of compensation that would place it in the economic position it would have held had royalties been timely paid and prudently invested to produce return and preserve the principal”); see also Mosinee Paper Corp. v. James River Corp. of Va., 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1657 , 1664 (…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mosinee Paper Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant
v.
James River Corporation of Virginia
v.
James River Corporation of Virginia
92-1272.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Feb 8, 1993.
Unpublished
Citer courts: Court of International Trade (1)
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.
MOSINEE PAPER CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant,
v.
JAMES RIVER CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 92-1272, 92-1295, 92-1442 and 92-1455.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Feb. 8, 1993.
Before ARCHER, MAYER and RADER, Circuit Judges:
Judgment
PER CURIAM.
1
AFFIRMED. Fed.Cir.R. 36.