Louise Amos v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 86 F.3d 1175 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Louise Amos v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 86 F.3d 1175 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kit-San-Azusa v. United States, 86 F.3d 1175 (Fed.Cir. 1996) (unpub.) 1996 WL 232647 , at *2 (interpreting Placeway decision).
cited Cited "see" Gatewood v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Buckley v. Airshield Corp., 908 F.Supp. 299 , 304 n. 5 (D.Md.1995), appeal dismissed, 86 F.3d 1175 (Fed.Cir.1996).
discussed Cited "see" Greenhill Reforestation, Inc. v. United States (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Cl. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kit-San-Azusa, 32 Fed.Cl. 647, 664 (1995), affd in part, 86 F.3d 1175 (Fed.Cir.1996) (table). .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. Daniel
D.S.C. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Buckley v. Airshield Corp., 908 F.Supp. 299, 304 (D.Md. 1995), appeal dismissed, 86 F.3d 1175 (4th Cir.1996); Robert Woodhead, Inc. v. Datawatch Corp., 934 F.Supp. 181, 183 (E.D.N.C. 1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Louise Amos
v.
Department of Veterans Affairs
96-3185.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
May 2, 1996.
86 F.3d 1175
Unpublished

86 F.3d 1175

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(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issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
Louise AMOS, Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

No. 96-3185.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 2, 1996.

1

70 M.S.P.R. 249.

2

REVIEW REINSTATED.

ORDER

3

Petitioner having paid the required filing fee, it is ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the petition for review is REINSTATED.

4

Respondent should compute the due date for filing its brief from the date of this order.