Case law

JJJ Corp. v. United States

576 F.2d 327 · United States Court of Claims · May 17, 1978

Defendant relies upon Alex Brown, Inc. v. … Alex Brown, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, 60 T.C. at 368 .

Cushman Chuck Co. v. Commissioner

8 B.T.A. 148 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 22, 1927

Browning Co., 6 B. T. A. 914. … The contracts were paid in to the petitioner corporation by the Brownings without any consideration therefor except the nominal consideration of one dollar, and under the decision of this Board in the Appeal of Herald-Despatch

Application of Charles W. Attwood

253 F.2d 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 14, 1958

Claim 8 was rejected by the board as unpatentable over Brown in view of Chase. … The board rejected this claim as unpatentable over Brown in view of Chase, the German patent and Attwood. Again, we feel that the Attwood disclosure was not properly combined with the other cited references.

Hank M. Smiddy v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 28, 2020

Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 57 (1990). … But see Kellar v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 157, 162 (1994) (noting that evaluations regarding employability in § 4.16 and interference with employment contained in § 3.321(b)(1) are different metrics); Stanton v.

Jackson v. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 27 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 29, 2009

See Wick v. Brown (In re Wick), 40 F.3d 367, 371 (Fed. … Id.; see Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118 (1994) (noting that interpretive doubt is to be resolved in veteran's favor).

Morgan Brown

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jul 14, 2016

Swyers of The Trademark Company, for Morgan Brown. Jeffrey J. … See Kellogg Co. v. New Generation Foods Inc., 6 USPQ2d 2045, 2047 (TTAB 1988); Santinine Societa v. P.A.B.

United States v. Park

4 Ct. Cust. 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1913

United States v. Loeb ( 107 Fed., 692 ). … Co. v.

Cochran Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 62 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 10, 1920

United States v. Gage Bros. & Co. ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 306 ; T. D. 37584); Bayersdorfer & Co. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 446 ; T. D; 33875); United States v. International Forwarding Co. ( 8 Ct. Cust. … The decisions of Board 1 as to protests 837745 and 849479, of the’ R. L. Cochran Co., are affirmed. The decisions of Boards 1, 2, and 3, as to the protests of A. & H.

In re Armstrong

83 F.2d 924 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1936

In Ohmer Fare Register Co. v. … Co. v. F. E. Mgers & Bro.

National Board of the Young Men's Christian Associations v. United States

396 F.2d 467 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 14, 1968

In United States v. … Justice Field in United States v.

Johnnie R. Mangham v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 284 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 16, 2009

First, in Sweitzer v. Brown, we considered the case of a claimant who, while waiting to undergo a VA medical examination, was struck and injured by another patient in a motorized wheelchair. 5 Vet.App. 503, 506 (1993). … .”); see also Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 526 (1995) (noting that VA need not “ ‘search for evidence which, even if obtained, would make no difference in the result.’ ” (quoting Gobber v.

White v. United States

101 Fed. Cl. 673 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 8, 2011

Gardner v. Brown, 5 F.3d 1456, 1463 (Fed. Cir.1993), aff'd, 513 U.S. 115 , 115 S.Ct. 552 , 130 L.Ed.2d 462 (1994); see Davis v. United States, 36 Fed.Cl. 556, 559 (1996). … Pain and suffering damages are a tort remedy, however, and this Court does not possess jurisdiction over tort claims. § 1491(a)(1); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.1997).

In re Duclaux

67 F.2d 443 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1933

Brown, 1692619, Nov. 20, 1928. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Bullock v. United States

176 F. Supp. 279 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 13, 1959

Brown Company is a licensee under said patent. Plaintiff Bullock is president of E. C. Brown Company. … Brown Company, a corporation of New York, is licensee under said patent. Giles E. Bullock is president of The E. C. Brown Company and has a substantial financial interest in that company.

Electrolux Corp. v. United States

21 Cust. Ct. 174 · United States Customs Court · Jun 30, 1948

(United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc., 34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351, and United States v. Washington State Liquor Control Board, id. 118, C. A. D. 352, followed.)

Campbell v. District of Columbia

18 Ct. Cl. 193 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 26, 1883

(Clark v. United States, 95 U. S. R., 539 .) … R., 351 ), and Brown’s Case ( 17 C. Cls.

William H. Wanless, Jr. v. Anthony J. Principi

18 Vet. App. 337 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 13, 2004

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. … See Skinner v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1571, 1576 (Fed.

James S. Eicher v. David J. Shulkin

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 14, 2017

Brown, 9 Vet.App. 369, 377 (1996) (quoting McTighe v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 29, 30 (1994)). … Owings v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 17, 23 (1995).

Starflight Boats v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 592 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 8, 2001

We agree with the Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals that the Board is “not precluded from considering evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements or negotiations or other relevant evidence concerning dealings and … Brown’s assistance. Actual authority can either be express or implied-in-fact. See H. Landau & Co. v. United States, 886 F.2d 322, 324 (Fed.Cir.1989).

Ty K. Sanders v. Department of Homeland Security

2015 MSPB 7 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jan 15, 2015

Brown v. Department of the Interior, 121 M.S.P.R. 205, ¶ 8 (2014); see 5 C.F.R. § 339.206. The appellant’s CBPO position had physical requirements, and thus the standard set forth above is applicable. … Brown, 121 M.S.P.R. 205, ¶ 18. The standard to be applied in such cases is whether the penalty of removal exceeded the “tolerable limits of reasonableness.” Id. (citing Marshall-Carter v.