Phillip Morris v. Dep't of the Navy, 104 F.3d 375 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Phillip Morris v. Dep't of the Navy, 104 F.3d 375 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Melvin Cosely v. Department of the Army (mspb, 2026-04-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Melvin Cosely v. Department of the Army
MSPB · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
Also, as noted above, the initial decision dismissing the appellant’s 2017 claim for lack of jurisdiction became final when neither party petitioned for review. 0207 ID at 4; see Wade v. Department of the Air Force, 70 M.S.P.R. 396 , 398 (holding that 5 collateral estoppel may only be applied when there is a final judgment in the previous litigation), aff’d, 104 F.3d 375 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Rory C Flynn v. Securities and Exchange Commission
MSPB · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wade v. Department of the Air Force, 70 M.S.P.R. 396 , 398 (holding that collateral estoppel may only be applied when there is a final judgment in the previous litigation), aff’d, 104 F.3d 375 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Phillip Morris
v.
Department of the Navy
97-3045.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Nov 25, 1996.
104 F.3d 375
1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 37181
1996 WL 699558
✓ 70 M.S.P.R. 396
Unpublished

104 F.3d 375

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issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
Phillip MORRIS, Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF the NAVY, Respondent.

No. 97-3045.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 25, 1996.

[*~375–376]1

71 M.S.P.R. 568.

2

REVIEW DISMISSED.

ORDER

3

The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) and to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

4

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.