Case law

Albemarle Paper Mfg. Co. v. Renegotiation Board

35 T.C. 438 · United States Tax Court · Dec 23, 1960

Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459, 470 (1900); Rigby v. Rasmussen, 275 F. 2d 861, 863 (C.A. 10, 1960). … Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 375, 378 (1931) ; Commissioner v. South Texas Co., 333 U.S. 496, 501 (1948).

Voerth v. West

13 Vet. App. 117 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 15, 1999

See Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 92 (1993). … Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 , 1996 WL 56489 (Fed.Cir.1996) (table); Epps v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 341, 343-44 (1996), aff'd sub nom. Epps v.

Brown v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

18 Cl. Ct. 834 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 17, 1989

Brown and Nancy Gatewood Brown. … Brown, the personal calendar of Mrs. Brown, and the billing statement from Dr.

11-01 389

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2015

In this case, the Board finds that all necessary development has been accomplished, and thus appellate review may proceed without prejudice to the Veteran. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993). … Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54.

Velez v. West

11 Vet. App. 148 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 25, 1998

Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119 (1993), and Austin v. … See Locher v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 535, 538-39 (1996) (citing Reiber v.

Brown v. Comm'r

111 T.C.M. 1372 · United States Tax Court · Apr 28, 2016

BROWN AND MARY BROWN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 19738-14L. Filed April 28, 2016. Steven R. Mather, for petitioners. … See Hoyle v.

Beeley v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

12 T.C. 61 · United States Tax Court · Jan 27, 1949

This proceeding was heard and petitioners’ brief was filed prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lichter v. United States, 334 U. S. 742 . … It was not involved under the facts in the three cases which were before the Supreme Court in Lichter v. United States, supra.

Gale v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

19 T.C. 1107 · United States Tax Court · Mar 24, 1953

Congress created the' War Contracts Price Adjustment Board for the express purpose of making such determinations as the respondent has here made. … Mere incorporation of renegotiable profits in the consideration to be paid for a contract which might not fall within the Act is not sufficient to place such profits beyond the reach of the Board.

Woehlaert v. Nicholson

21 Vet. App. 456 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 24, 2007

Cir. 2001); Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Butler v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 167 (1996). Therefore, it must be asked and answered by the Board de novo whenever a claim to reopen is filed. … See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table); see also Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 379, 384 (1995).

10-46 248

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 27, 2015

Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). … Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 262 (1994).

08-33 242

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jun 29, 2015

The credibility and weight to be attached to such opinions are within the province of the Board as adjudicators. Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467 (1993); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36 (1994). … Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994).

05-04 694

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Oct 31, 2012

See Moray v. Brown, 2 Vet. App. 211, 214 (1993); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1) and (2) (2012). … See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.

Board of County Supervisors v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 205 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 3, 1991

Hylton Enters, v. Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, 220 Va. 435, 440 , 258 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1979). … Accord Byrum v. Board of Supervisors of Orange County, 217 Va. 37, 39 , 225 S.E.2d 369, 371 (1976).

Browne v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 278 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 4, 2002

Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 330, 332 (1997) (quoting Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). … See Murillo, Martin, and Perez, all supra; see also Brown v.

Van Pelt & Brown, Inc. v. John Wyeth & Brother, Inc.

161 F.2d 244 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1947

and in use” as provided for in section 5 of the Trade-Mark Act of 1905, the examiner held that the validity of appellee’s registered trade-mark could not be challenged in an opposition proceeding, citing Englander, Etc. v. … basis for confusion between the labels of the parties; that appellee had not made such exclusive use of blue bands and ink as to render that color of secondary significance; and that appellant’s product is contained in brown

Barney O. Padgett v. R. James Nicholson

19 Vet. App. 334 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 7, 2005

See Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 42 (1994); see also Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed.Cir.1996) (expressly agreeing with this Court’s Landicho holding); Richard v. … See Kawad v. West, 12 Vet.App. 61, 62 (1998) (per curiam order); Keel v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 124, 126 (1996).

Snuffer v. Gober

10 Vet. App. 400 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 24, 1997

See Drosky v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 251, 254 (1997); Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 629, 631-32 (1992). The Court reviews de novo whether a claim is well grounded. See Grivois v. … Brown, 6 Vet.App. *403 136, 139 (1994); King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19, 21 (1993).

Mittleider v. West

11 Vet. App. 181 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 8, 1998

. *182 § 7104 (d)(2); see also Spurgeon v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 194, 196 (1997); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990). … See Drosky v. Brown, 10 *183 Vet.App. 251, 257 (1997); Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 533-34 (1995).

Ralston v. United States

91 Ct. Cl. 91 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 1, 1940

The case of Sweeney v. United States, 82 C. … See also SJiacJclette v. United States, 71 C. Cls. 376 .

Alberta Pork Producers' Marketing Board v. United States

669 F. Supp. 445 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 7, 1987

Plaintiffs offer no proof that all agricultural products are protected by marketing boards or that such boards provide benefits comparable to those provided under stabilization plans. … Even in Manitoba, where marketing boards exist for producers of dairy products, turkeys and eggs, there is no evidence on the record that those boards provide income support for farmers of those products.