28 U.S.C. § 1296
Review of certain agency actions
A prior section 1296, added Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 127(a),
Pub. L. 104–331, § 3(d),
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases, 1981–2020 · leading case: United States v. W. R. Walters, United States of Am. v. Two Hundred Sixty-Two Firearms, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
United States v. W. R. Walters, United States of Am. v. Two Hundred Sixty-Two Firearms, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). “The district court ruled that specific authorization from the Attorney General or his delegate was needed and such authorization was not provided.”
Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta Ab, Elekta Instrument Ab, Elekta Instruments, Inc., & Elekta Oncology Sys., Inc., 344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1296 (a)(1). II We review the district court’s denial of JMOL of noninfringement by reapplying the JMOL standard, under which we reverse the denial of the motion “only if the jury’s factual findings are not supported…”
Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 833 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Zafer timely appealed; we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1296 (a)(3). Discussion I Zafer first challenges the grant of summary judgment to USACE of no constructive change.”
Zhen Nan Lin v. United States Dep't of Just., 459 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2006). “Based on the fact that Lin submitted a fraudulent document and his failure to offer evidence rebutting the Consular Report, the BIA found that Lin was not credible.”
Paradise Creations, Inc. v. Uv Sales, Inc., 315 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1296 (a)(1)!' DISCUSSION I We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment without deference.”
Nova v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 981 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “§ 2618 (providing a 60-day pe- riod to challenge rules related to the control of toxic substances); 28 U.S.C. § 1296 (b) (providing a 30-day dead- line for review of actions of the Secretary of Labor); 30 U.”
Generation II Orthotics Inc. & Generation II USA Inc. v. Med. Tech. Inc. (Doing Bus. as Bledsoe Brace Sys.), 263 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “” Thereafter, Gen II stipulated to entry of judgment of non-infringement, recognizing that the district court’s construction of the function performed by the joint means affected all of the claims in dispute and precluded a finding that the Thruster infringed the '169 patent or…”
Rogers v. United States, 814 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “We have jurisdiction over this consolidated appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1296 (a)(3). Discussion The sole question on appeal is whether the Appellants — the plaintiffs from the Bird Bay and the Rogers III actions — hold any interest in the land within the subject rail corridor.”
Spengler v. United States, 688 F. App'x 917 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1296 (a)(3). Discussion We review dismissal of a complaint by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction de novo, Boyle v.”
Guardian Moving & Storage Co v. United States, 657 F. App'x 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “24 (asserting that the USTC’s “corrective action was unnecessary, prejudiced Guardian, and did not render Guardian’s protest moot” (capitalization modified)).”
Ingham Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. United States, 874 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1296 (a)(3). II The Court of Federal Claims found that Ingham failed to state a claim for breach of contract after determining that Ingham’s claim was barred by the Release.”
Jacobi Carbons Ab v. United States, 619 F. App'x 992 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1296 (a)(5). Discussion We review decisions of the CIT de novo, applying the same standard used by the CIT.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.