Case law

Shepard v. West

11 Vet. App. 518 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 22, 1998

See Davis v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 298, 303 (1994). … Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 42, 54 (1994); see Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed.Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 117 S.Ct. 2478 , 138 L.Ed.2d 988 (1997).

Sullivan v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 21, 2022

See 28 U.S.C. § 1491; Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (first citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a); then Keene Corp. v. … Cir. 2006)) (“[A]ny argument not previously raised before the corrections board is waived.”); United States v. L.A.

Fred W. Foster v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 20, 2021

He cites Brown v. Brown, which found that § 4.1, in addition to §§ 4.2 and 4.13, 64 See 59 Fed. Reg. 2523, 2525-26 (1994) (amending the note accompanying DC 7528); 65 Fed. … Brown, 5 Vet.App. 413, 420 (1993). 68 Barr v.

Wheeler v. Kleinschmidt

149 F.2d 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1945

Blanchard, et al. v. Howard D. … Coe v. Brown, 193 O. G. 511 , 1913 C. D. 187. The board apparently relied, however, upon the decision in the case of Ex parte Robinson, 32 USPQ165.

Smith v. Principi

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 4, 2001

See YT v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 195 (1996); see also BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 356 (7th ed. 1999) (defining ordinary course of business as "[t]he normal routine in managing a trade or business"). … . § 5101 note) (requiring Secretary to provide for "expeditious treatment" for claims remanded by Board or Court). See Drosky v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 251, 257 (1997); Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 533-34 (1995).

Steven W. Hamer v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 58 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 27, 2010

Ford v. … Cir. 2002) (en banc); Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 242, 245 (1994). Thus, the July 9, 2007, Board decision has the "same effect" as if it had been made on May 7, 1985.

Mark A. Stover v. Gordon H. Mansfield

21 Vet. App. 485 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 6, 2007

See Laposky v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 331, 334 (1993) (citing Akins v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 228, 232 (1991)); see also Vanerson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 254, 258, 261 (1999)). … See Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 429, 433 (1995) (the weighing of evidence is particularly suited for the Board, not the Court); Webster v.

Cory Owens v. Department of Homeland Security

2023 MSPB 7 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Feb 22, 2023

* To the extent that Brown v. Department of the Interior, 121 M.S.P.R. 205 (2014), overruled on other grounds by Haas v. Department of Homeland Security, 2022 MSPB 36, and Edwards v. … . ¶11 While cases like Wren, 121 M.S.P.R. 28, and Brown v. Department of the Interior, 121 M.S.P.R. 205 (2014), overruled on other grounds by Haas v.

Angel v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 12, 2023

Brown Park Ests.-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Brighton Vill. Assocs. v. United States, 52 F.3d 1056, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). … For an example of a claim that accrued at the time of a single, distinct event, even though the government action had lingering ill effects for the plaintiff over time, the Federal Circuit in Brown Park referenced Hart v.

Millard v. Commissioner

5 B.T.A. 294 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 30, 1926

Brown, and Charles P. Wheeler were the principal stockholders of Pickands, Brown & Co. The company had 15,000 shares of capital stock outstanding during 1916 and for the years prior thereto. … On December 19, 1916, by resolution of the board of directors, these securities were authorized to be distributed among all the stockholders.

In re East

495 F.2d 1361 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1974

Browning and one by Dr. Charles A. Kumins- — presented to the examiner. … Appellants dispute the board’s view on the ground that the Kumins affidavit and the Browning affidavit indicate that one skilled in the art would know that developer mixes containing magnetic carrier particles can be used

Lowell Wool By-Products Co. v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

14 T.C. 1398 · United States Tax Court · Jun 30, 1950

In Hug Co. v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, 14 T. C. 621 , we recently took the view that actual control, and not legally enforceable control, is the proper test under the Renegotiation Act. … We have on the last point in Moening v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, 14 T.

John R. Gallagher v. Anthony J. Principi

17 Vet. App. 386 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 30, 2003

Third, had the Board properly proceeded with the motion for CUE revision under 38 U.S.C. § 7111, its decision would be subject to judicial review, see Jordan v. … Brown, that the motion for CUE revision was misconstrued as a motion for reconsideration, that the motion for CUE revision remains pending before the Board, and that the Court expects it to be adjudicated expeditiously in

David A. Mays v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 256 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 22, 2012

Ass'n v. Bowen, 485 U.S. 399, 403-05 (1998))), aff'd sub nom. Gardner v. Brown, 5 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1993), aff'd, 513 U.S. 115, 115 (1994). … See Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119, 122-123 (1993) (citing Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).

Bateson v. United States

51 Fed. Cl. 557 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 28, 2002

The AFBCMR secured advisory opinions pertaining to Majors Brown and Seward from the Office of the Selection Board Secretariat. … v.

Frank v. Commissioner

16 B.T.A. 771 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 28, 1929

Van Fossan: We do not deem it essential to this decision to decide whether or not Brown was an employee of a political subdivision of the State of Ohio. Brown is not the petitioner. … Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered wnder Bule 60. Maequette, Smith, and Green concur in the result.

George R. Theiss v. Anthony J. Principi

18 Vet. App. 480 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 18, 2004

See Simmons v. West, 14 Vet.App. 84, 85 (2000); Zevalkink v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 430, 431 (1994). … See Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118 (1994); Disabled Am. Veterans v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Disabled Am. Veterans v. Gober, 234 F.3d 682, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Majeed v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 421 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 28, 2002

See 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (d)(1); Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 56-57 (1990). … See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed.Cir.1996) (table); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert, supra.

Adams v. United States

117 Fed. Cl. 628 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 17, 2014

Brown, 1997 WL 364047, at *3. In Pierce v. … Flash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 332, 339 (1995).

LUTHERAN MINISTRIESOF FLORIDA

20 I. & N. Dec. 185 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1990

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members; Brown, Temporary Board Member An application, on Form G-27 (Request for Recognition as a Non- Profit Religious, Charitable, Social Service … Any such application should be filed with the Board, along with proof of service of a copy of the application on the appropriate district director.