Sheldon Jay Plager

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit circuit Appointed by George H.W. Bush (Republican) 26 signed orders read

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

TRW, Inc. v. Unisys Corp.
98 F.3d 1325 · 1996-10-25
Appeal (appellant (procuring agency and awardee)) Granted

“Because the GSBCA based its decision on an erroneous standard, we reverse.”

Edward E. Allen v. United States
100 F.3d 133 · 1996-12-04
Appeal (appellant (claimant)) Denied

“Because we agree with the trial court that there was no contract, we affirm.”

Gregory C. Krug v. United States
168 F.3d 1307 · 1999-02-17
Appeal (appellant (claimant)) Denied

“Because we conclude that the Court of Federal Claims correctly read the law, we affirm.”

Sharon M. Lourens v. Merit Systems Protection Board
193 F.3d 1369 · 1999-10-13
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“Because the MSPB's decision, which became final on January 26, 1999, was in accordance with the law and not unsupported by substantial evidence, see 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)(1) (1994), we affirm.”

US JVC Corp. v. United States
184 F.3d 1362 · 1999-10-06
Appeal (appellant (importer)) Denied

“For the above reasons, we affirm the Court of International Trade's dismissal of JVC's suit.”

Automated Business Companies, Inc. v. NEC America, Inc.
202 F.3d 1353 · 2000-01-28
Appeal (appellant (patentee)) Denied

“Because there was no abuse of discretion or other error in the district court's award of full attorney fees to NEC America pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, the order awarding fees is AFFIRMED.”

William M. Hanlin v. United States
214 F.3d 1319 · 2000-06-02
Appeal (appellant (claimant)) Granted

“Because the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Mr. Hanlin's claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (1994), and because 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) does not divest the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction, we reverse and remand.”

John O. Roane v. United States
231 F.3d 1348 · 2000-11-03
Appeal (cross-appellant (government)) Granted

“Because the decision of the Court of Federal Claims is inconsistent with binding precedent subsequently issued by this court, we reverse.”

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Richardson
233 F.3d 1376 · 2000-11-29
Appeal (appellant (claimant companies)) Granted

“Because the district court erred in dismissing the action, we reverse, and remand for further proceedings.”

The Humane Society of the United States v. Clinton
236 F.3d 1320 · 2001-01-04
Appeal (appellant (advocacy organizations)) Denied

“Because the Court of International Trade did not err in its judgment, the judgment is affirmed.”

Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.
545 F.3d 1316 · 2008-10-10
Appeal (appellant (patentee)) Denied

“After weighing carefully the findings and judgment of the trial court, which followed from a lengthy bench trial, and the arguments of counsel for the parties regarding the several issues in contention, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.”

Walch v. Shinseki
563 F.3d 1374 · 2009-04-30
Appeal (appellant (veteran claimant)) Denied

“We therefore affirm the judgment of the Veterans Court.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Circuit judges do not carry a trial caseload; not enumerated.

Put Judge Plager's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Plager actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Plager's own signed orders and cites them.