Case law

Fine v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

9 T.C. 600 · United States Tax Court · Oct 7, 1947

The War Contracts Price Adjustment Board adopted the determination as its determination. … See also Iverson & Laux, Inc. v. James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy, 6 T. C. 247 .

Smith v. Gober

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 31, 2000

Rivers v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 469, 471(1997) (quoting Myers v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 127, 129 (1991)); see Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 398, 410 (1995). … Cir. 2000); Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 532, 539 (1993) (en banc). The U. S.

Smith v. Gober

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 4, 2000

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).

Salomon Bros. & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 431 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

The board overruled the protest, and the importer appeals. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Mathews v. Commissioner

8 B.T.A. 209 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 22, 1927

Co. v. Bond, 240 U. S. 449, 406 , 36 S. Ct. 403 , 60 L. Ed. 735 ; Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U. S. 215, 227 , 29 S. Ct. 252 , 53 L. Ed. 480 . And see Casement v. Brown, 148 U. S. 615 , 13 S. Ct. 672 , 37 L. … See Vane v. Newcombe, 132 U. S. 220 .

Pedro P. Del Rosario v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 399 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 5, 2009

Howe v. … Brown, 7 Vet.App. 260, 267 (1994) (citing Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 500, 503 (1994) (Rules of hearsay evidence do not apply to proceedings before the Board.)); see also Gabrielson v.

Nicholas Ribaudo v. R. James Nicholson

21 Vet. App. 137 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 13, 2007

Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 206 F.2d 738, 740 (2nd Cir.1953). The Court recognizes that “[wjhenever decisions of one court are reviewed by another, a percentage of them are reversed.” Brown v. … See Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 42, 47 (1994). Therefore, the delay suffered by these claimants is consequential and must be afforded weight in the consideration of the stay factors. D.

Williams v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 189 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 31, 2001

Brown, 5 Vet.App. 532, 539 (1993) (en banc) (Court reviews questions of law de novo); see also Maggitt v. … See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252 (a) (Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of Board; Secretary may not seek review of any such decision), 7266(a); Nolen v. Gober, 222 F.3d 1356 (Fed.Cir.2000); Bond v.

O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner

134 T.C. 34 · United States Tax Court · Feb 2, 2010

Brown Petitioner’s expert, Dr. George R. Brown (Dr. Brown), is a licensed physician, board certified in adult psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Dr. … Dietz), is a licensed physician and board certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Like Dr. Brown, he is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

Donovan v. West

13 Vet. App. 489 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 9, 2000

On October 8, 1998, this Court issued an opinion affirming the Board's decision in part, vacating the decision in part, and remanding two matters for readjudication. See Donovan v. … It is further ORDERED that the Board's May 1995 decision is VACATED. See Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 42, 54 (1994) (citing United States v.

Retsal Drilling Co. v. Commissioner

42 B.T.A. 1057 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 23, 1940

TuRNee : That a completed oil well is a capital item seems to be well settled, Grison Oil Corporation v. Commissioner, 96 Fed. (2d) 125; Harris Co. v. Commissioner, 112 Fed. (2d) 76, affirming 38 B. T. … Decision will be entered v/nder Rule 50.

Sachs v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 414 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 6, 2002

See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B); Sumner v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 256 (2001) (en banc). In the first decision on the merits, found at Sachs v. … Bowyer v.

United States v. Didier-March Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 436 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

Not being susceptible of decoration, the machines imported were not dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 96, as classified by the collector, and the board was correct in so deciding. Fensterer & Ruhe v. … Seeberger v. Schlesinger ( 152 U. S., 581, 587 ); United States v. Downing ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 337 ; T. D. 31434).

Keith D. Snyder v. R. James Nicholson

19 Vet. App. 445 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 24, 2006

Cacatian v. West, 12 Vet.App. 373, 376 (1999) (quoting Gardner v. Brown, 5 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1993), aff'd, 513 U.S. 115 (1994)); see Trilles v. West, 13 Vet.App. 314, 321 (2000) (en banc). … 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).

United States v. Washington State Liquor Control Board

34 C.C.P.A. 118 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1946

The Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in affirming the foregoing decision of the board, United States v. E. L. Goodsell Co., 91 Fed. 519 , expressly approved the doctrine therein enunciated. … That contention was discussed and overruled in United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc., 34 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 112, C. A. D. 351, Appeal No. 4531, decided concurrently herewith.

Zoltan v. Commissioner

79 T.C. 490 · United States Tax Court · Sep 20, 1982

In Brown v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 156 (1979), this Court found that the taxpayer enrolled her son in boarding school to enable her to seek and hold gainful employment. … In defining "child care” we said, "incidentals that go with providing well-being and protection, such as room, board, and supervision before and after the normal school day, should be deductible.” Brown 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.

Sylvia A. Ventris v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 31, 2021

A Board determination as to whether an individual may be considered a surviving spouse is a factual question the Court reviews for clear error. See Dedicatoria v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 441, 443 (1995). … See Jones v. West, 136 F.3d 1296, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1241 (Fed.

Wheless v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 2026

, etc., or was in violation of some other substantive right.”); see Brown v. … See Walls, 582 F.3d at 1369–82 (Newman, J., dissenting) (“The Brown ruling continues to be the law of this circuit.” (footnote omitted) (citing Bray v. United States, 515 F.2d 1383 (Ct. Cl. 1975), amongst other cases).

Fargason v. Commissioner

21 B.T.A. 1032 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 31, 1930

S. 206; Bennett v. Cook, 28 S. C. 353; 6 S. E. 28 ; and Hackett v. Moxley, 65 Vt. 71 ; 25 Atl. 898 . In Pierce v. Brown University, supra, the heirs of a donor (Almira T. … Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered under Rule 50.