Arthur J. Gajarsa
Judge Gajarsa no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because Johnson had no standing to bring the takings claim before the Court of Federal Claims, we affirm.”
“we hold that Ms. Hairston is entitled to receive the former spouse survivor annuity, and accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“Secretary”) permissibly interpreted 38 U.S.C. § 1110 to require “current symptoma-tology” at the time the claim is filed in order for a veteran to be entitled to compensation for a disability such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) under that statute, we affirm the decision of the Court of Veterans Appeals.”
“which denied his claim of clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in a prior rating decision. We affirm.”
“We therefore reverse the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint by the Court of Federal Claims and remand the case for further proceedings.”
“Because we find that the CAVC did not err in its conclusions, we affirm.”
“For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the CAVC.”
“Because petitioners have not stated a claim upon which a request for relief can be granted, this court affirms.”
“Because we hold that the PTO Board erred as a matter of law in finding that Evans reduced the count to practice by December 1986, we vacate the PTO Board’s priority determination and remand for further findings regarding Evans’s date of reduction to practice and Eaton’s dates of conception and reduction to practice.”
“because Congress has not statutorily waived the government’s sovereign immunity from interest payments necessary to compensate a veteran who has been damaged by a clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) by the government, we affirm.”
“the Board committed no reversible error in applying the two-way test to determine that the '529 patent and the corresponding claims of the '663 reissue application do not define the same patentable invention, we affirm.”
“Because we find no error in the district court’s claim construction, we affirm the summary judgment of noninfringement.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Not applicable to this circuit-court record.
A historical record
Judge Gajarsa no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.