Case law

Park & Tilford Import Corp. v. United States

23 C.C.P.A. 369 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1936

A similar rule was also announced and approved in the following-cases: Levy v. Michon Bros., 77 So. 644 ; American Tobacco Co. v. Strickling, 41 A. 1083, 1086 ; Yerkes v. Board of Sup’rs., 117 A. 772, 775 ; Smithie v. … State, 101 So. 276 ; Roettger v. Riefkin, 113 S. W. 88 ;. In re Marcellino, 171 N. E. 81 ; Campfield v. Cook, 52 N. W. 1031 ; State v. Gandy, 70 S. E. 163 ; Minor v. McDonald, 140 S.

Dynamet Technology, Inc. v. Dynamet Inc.

593 F.2d 1007 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 8, 1979

See Steer Inn Systems, Inc. v. … American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 269 U.S. 372, 380 , 46 S.Ct. 160 , 70 L.Ed. 317 (1926); United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97 , 39 S.Ct. 48 , 63 L.Ed. 141 (1918); Hanover Milling Co. v.

United States v. Hudson Shipping Co.

49 C.C.P.A. 92 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1962

Tote boxes moving along the upper track are delivered to any selected work station as determined by a supervisor or feeder who operates the conveyor indicator board. … Petry Co. v. United States, 40 Cust. Ct. 443 , Abstract 61541, and Geo. H. Diebel, Jr. v. United States, 29 Treas.

United States v. Globe Shipping Co.

19 C.C.P.A. 148 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 2, 1931

That section further provides that “a protest may be amended at any time prior to the first docket call thereof,” under such rules as may be prescribed by the Board of General Appraisers (now the court below) and in its discretion … United *151 States v. Sheldon & Co., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 427 , T. D. 34946, and cases therein cited; section 514, supra.

Kreutz & Co. v. United States

25 C.C.P.A. 180 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 1, 1937

(Inc.) v. United States, 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 110, T. … Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. United States, 289 U. S. 48 .

Brandon Corp. v. United States

31 C.C.P.A. 149 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1943

By that argument, counsel, in effect, invokes the well-established principle of statutory construction announced by the Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. … See Whitlock Cordage Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 656 , T. D. 41490; Passaic Worsted Co. et at. v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 459, T. D. 43916; Jett & Co. v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A.

Garrard Sales Corp. v. United States

35 C.C.P.A. 39 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1947

Coxhead Corp. v. United States, 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 96, T. D. 47080; Julius Forstmann & Co. v. United States, 28 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 222, C. A. D. 149. … See Brand Co. et al. v. United States, T. D. 40649, 47 Treas. Dec. 113 , 115.

Otis McAllister & Co. v. United States

27 C.C.P.A. 4 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. United States, 20 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 229, 235, T.D. 46038. … European Trading Co. v. United States, 19 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 82, T. D. 45225.

Vitab Corp. v. Knox Co.

143 F.2d 883 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 19, 1944

Appellant’s registration No. 303,022 is for the trade-mark “Vitab” for use on “BREAD, BROWN RICE, CRISP BREAD, SOYA J3EAN FLOUR, AND RICE POLISHINGS, in Class 46, Foods and ingredients of foods.” … See Union Distilling Company v. Schneider, 29 App. D.

McLaughlin v. United States

21 C.C.P.A. 446 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1934

On this record the trial court held, the cases having been consolidated, in a decision by Sullivan, J., McClelland, J., specially concurring, and Brown, J., dissenting, that the importer had not proceeded in conformity with … Gallagher & Ascher v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 38 , T.D. 41548; Penick & Ford v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 432 , T.D. 40611.

United States v. General Display Case Co.

21 C.C.P.A. 542 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1934

In United States v. Bloch & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. … In Solomon & Son v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust.

United States v. American Trading Co.

17 C.C.P.A. 368 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1930

United States, 153 Fed. 861 , United States v. Seyd, 158 Fed. 408 , United States v. Davies, Turner & Co., 177 Fed. 371 , American Trading Co. v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 237 . … In MarTcell v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust.

United States v. Harris

4 Ct. Cust. 116 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1913

The cases of United States v. The Express ( 25 Fed. Cas., 1035 ; case 15066) and United States v. Smith ( 27 Fed. Cas., 1246 ; case 16343) are in harmony with the views herein expressed. … United States v. Shallus ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332 ; T. D. 32074). For the reasons herein stated we are of the opinion that the decision of the Board of (General Appraisers should be' affirmed.

Carey & Skinner, Inc. v. United States

42 C.C.P.A. 86 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 9, 1954

In August of 1946, after part of the second four-color edition had been exported to Great Britain, the British Board of Trade cancelled the import license. … Proctor Company v. United States, 40 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 33, C. A. D. 494.

United States v. Simon Saw & Steel Co.

51 C.C.P.A. 33 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964

See, e.g., Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893); United States v. … And in Fink v.

MacLaren v. Stoetzel

38 F.2d 125 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1930

The Mason v. … The present case seems to come clearly within the holding of this court in Esty v. Newton, 14 App. D. C. 50, and it was so held by the Board of Examiners in Chief and the Commissioner of Patents.

Pitt v. United States

18 C.C.P.A. 326 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 21, 1931

See Baldwin Shipping Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 128 , T. D. 40051. … There is a clear distinction between the case a bar and that of Progressive Fine Arts Co. v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 306, T. D. 44506.

United States v. American Nickeloid Co.

50 C.C.P.A. 8 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1962

Victor v. United States ( 128 Fed. 472 ); Eckstein v. United States ( 140 Fed., 94 ). The party in interest relies here primarily on John A. Steer & Co. v. United States 57 Treas. … Justice Brewer in Arnold v. United States, 147 U.S. 494 , 499: “In Brown v.

T. D. Downing & Co. v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1928

The importer appealed to reappraisement by a single general appraiser, and for a review by the Board of General Appraisers in both instances, the appraised value being .in each instance affirmed. … Johnson Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 373 , T. D. 41318; Unitid States v. Tadross, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 10 , T. D. 41528; United States v. Tower & Sons, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 83 , T. D. 42158; Downing & Co. v.

United States v. McLaughlin

20 C.C.P.A. 263 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1932

In McLaughlin & Freeman v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 302, T. … In United States v. Sussfeld, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 51, 52 , T.