Littelfuse, Inc. v. Bel Fuse, Inc., 951 F.2d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Littelfuse, Inc. v. Bel Fuse, Inc., 951 F.2d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hatter v. United States (uscfc, 1997-06-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Hatter v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sankey v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 743, 746 (1991), aff'd, 951 F.2d 1266 (Fed.Cir.1991) (stating, based on Hart, 910 F.2d 815 : “this court no longer recognizes the continuing claim doctrine”); but see Acker, 23 Cl.Ct. at 804-06 (recognizing that the continuing claim doctrine “may be analytically suspect” and “is not readily reconciled with the wording of the statute of limitations,” but holding that Hart “cannot be interpreted to invalidate the continuing claim doctrine” because Hart was not an en banc decision that could overrule Court of Claims precedent).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Navajo Nation v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Accrual of a cause of action occurs “when all events which fix the government’s liability have occurred and the plaintiff was or should have been aware of their existence.” Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 855 F.2d 1573, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1988)(emphasis in original); Kinsey v. United States, 852 F.2d 556 , 557 n. * (Fed.Cir.1988); see also, Sankey v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 748 (1991)(statute begins to run when underlying facts of claim become known or knowable to plaintiff), aff'd 951 F.2d 1266 , 1991 WL 260869 (1991).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Littelfuse, Inc.
v.
Bel Fuse, Inc.
91-1336.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Dec 12, 1991.
951 F.2d 1266
Unpublished

951 F.2d 1266

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issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
LITTELFUSE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BEL FUSE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-1336.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 12, 1991.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Case No(s)., 88-3699.

D.N.J.

PAULINE NEWMAN, LOURIE and RADER, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

1

AFFIRMED. See Fed.Cir.R. 36.