Case law

Swanson v. West

12 Vet. App. 442 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 23, 1999

A Board determination of the proper effective date is a finding of fact. See Hanson v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 29, 32 (1996); Scott v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 184, 188 (1994). … See Smith [(William) ] v. Brown, 35 F.3d 1516 ...; see also Duran v. Brown, [ 7 Vet.App. 216 ].

Miller v. Shulkin

28 Vet. App. 376 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 6, 2017

Act itself.”); Smith v. Brown, 36 F.3d 1516, 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (noting that the canons of statutory interpretation apply to interpreting regulations), superseded by statute as stated in Samish Indian Nation v. … “[I]f the meaning of the regulation is clear from its language, then that is ‘the end of the matter.’ ” Tropf v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 317, 320 (2006) (quoting Brown v.

Steven Reed v. James B. Peake

23 Vet. App. 64 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 5, 2008

A claimant may file repeated motions for Board reconsideration, and when each such motion is received within 120 days of the previous denial, the 120-day time limit is started again upon each denial. Browne v. … Principi, 16 Vet.App. 278, 281 (2002) (citing Murillo v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 108, 110 (1997)).

Meakin v. West

11 Vet. App. 183 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 12, 1998

Compare Stringham v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 445, 448 (1995), with Malone v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 539, 544-45 (1997). 3. … Gardner v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 584, 588 (1991), aff'd sub nom. Gardner v. Brown, 5 F.3d 1456 (Fed.Cir.1993), aff'd, 513 U.S. 115 , 115 S.Ct. 552 , 130 L.Ed.2d 462 (1994); see also Brown v.

Bullock v. Commissioner

26 T.C. 276 · United States Tax Court · May 18, 1956

Weicker v. Howbert, 103 F. 2d 105 . … See Keefe v. Cote, supra.

Brown v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 25, 2025

Cl. 12(h)(3); see also Wood v. United States, 91 Fed. … Brown did file motions for a certificate of innocence in the district court, but they were summarily stricken by that court. See ECF Nos. 987, 989, 991, 994, 997, United States v. Davis, No. 6:93-cr-148.

Brown v. Commissioner

43 T.C.M. 1322 · United States Tax Court · May 5, 1982

BROWN AND ROSALIE BROWN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Brown v. Commissioner Docket No. 9570-79. United States Tax Court T.C. Memo 1982-253 ; 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 497 ; 43 T.C.M. … Brown (petitioner) was employed as a surgeon and petitioner Rosalie Brown was employed as a nurse.

Metz & Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 412 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

S. 120 ; Lowrie v. Meldrum Co., 124 Fed. 761 ; Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S. 383 ; Schmieder v. Barney, 113 U. S. 645 . … In United States v. Johnson, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 258 ; Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 17 , T. D. 40861; Johnson Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 373 , T.

Swiney v. Gober

14 Vet. App. 65 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 14, 2000

Lematta v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 504, 508 (1996); see also Smith (Wilfred) v. … See Locher v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 535, 537 (1996); ZP v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 303, 304 (1995).

Clarence W. King v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 484 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 21, 2014

Tropf v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 317, 320 (2006) (quoting Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 120 (1994)). … Brown v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 413, 422 (1993) (reversing Board's reduction of disability rating and remanding for Board to reinstate prior rating) (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A)); see Wilson v.

Ozer v. Principi

14 Vet. App. 257 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 6, 2001

Trilles v. West, 13 Vet.App. 314, 321 (2000) (en banc) (citing Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 532, 539 (1993) (en banc)). … See Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 533-34 (1995). The Secretary’s motion is denied.

Salahudin Majeed v. R. James Nicholson

19 Vet. App. 525 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 9, 2006

Cir. 2004) (same); Marciniak v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 198, 201 (1997) (holding that, "[i]n the absence of demonstrated prejudice," remand unnecessary); Parker v. … Brown, 5 Vet.App. 532, 539 (1993) (en banc) (Court reviews "questions of law de novo without any deference to the Board's conclusions of law"). In Sabonis v.

Carpenter v. West

12 Vet. App. 316 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 9, 1999

Dillon v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 165, 168 (1995). … See Golliday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 249, 254-55 (1994); Stillwell, supra. III.

Davenport v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 522 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 17, 2002

R. at 5 (citing Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 416, 424 (1994), and Shields v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 346, 351 (1995)). … Cacatian v. West, 12 Vet.App. 373, 376 (1999) (citing Gardner v. Brown, 5 F.3d at 1456); see also Meeks v.

In re Mott

557 F.2d 266 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1977

This type of means is clearly disclosed in Brown and to simply adapt the teaching of Brown to Leutwyler would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. [Emphasis ours.] … The drawing shows an automatic shutoff valve assembly V installed in a string of well production tubing T which extends downwardly through a well casing C set in a well bore W.

Johnson v. McDonald

28 Vet. App. 136 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 5, 2016

Stillwell v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 291, 303 (1994). … Ussery v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 51, 53 (1997); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(2)(A) (Court must determine what amount constitutes reasonable attorney fees); McDonald v.

United States v. Merck & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 171 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1917

Ev., pt. 3, c. 1; Fremont v. United States, 17 How., 542, 557 ; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S., 37, 42 ; State v. Wagner, 61 Maine, 178.) [Italics ours.] And in Brown et al. v. Piper ( 91 U. … Justice Swayne, in Brown v.

Samuels v. West

11 Vet. App. 433 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 23, 1998

WeH-Grounded PTSD Claim A Board determination whether a claim is well grounded is a conclusion of law subject to de novo review by the Court under 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (a)(1). Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). … King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19, 21 (1993) (citing Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992) and Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992)).

Leroy B. MacKlem v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 63 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 10, 2010

See Crippen, 9 Vet.App. at 421 (citing Eddy v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 52, 58 (1996)). This Court reviews CUE claims only when they have been previously adjudicated by the Board. See Sondel v. … decision “as ‘not in accordance with law.’ ” Brown v.

Bruce v. Gober

13 Vet. App. 565 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 1, 2000

See Ridings v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 544, 546 (1994). … See Ford v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 531, 535 (1997); Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136, 138 (1994) (issues or claims not argued on appeal are deemed abandoned); Bucklinger v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 435, 436 (1993).