Case law

Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Sam B. Wolf Sons Co.

39 F.2d 272 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1930

confusion among the public as to the source or origin of goods bearing either of said marks, unless the applicant confines its use to that prescribed in the referred to contract, or, in other words, unless the applicant company clearly … trade-mark in connection with certain words, and the other is to use another form of it in connection with other words, followed by the use of such trade-marks for several years in .accordance with the terms of the contract, establishes

Gammill v. Commissioner

62 T.C. 607 · United States Tax Court · Aug 13, 1974

The guidelines for applying collateral estoppel in a tax case are clearly expounded in the landmark decision of Commissioner v. Sunnen, supra. … Regis Paper Co. in the ordinary course of business, thus failing to qualify for capital gain treatment under section 1221.

Neuren v. United States

41 Fed. Cl. 422 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 22, 1998

There is clearly no question that 10 U.S.C. §§ 1201-21 creates a right to recover money. However, plaintiffs claim is not within the scope of recovery that can be obtained under this section. … He cannot now rely upon them to establish jurisdiction for this court to entertain his claim.

Oldham v. Commissioner

36 B.T.A. 523 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 17, 1937

The curatorship continued until August 18, 1932, a period of 21 months, at which time the executors, successful in the will litigation, qualified. … clearly that the Commissioner was wrong.

Tammie Morley v. Department of Veterans Affairs

2024 MSPB 17 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Nov 20, 2024

ANALYSIS ¶5 To establish entitlement to an award of attorney fees under 5 U.S.C. … An award of attorney fees may be warranted in the interest of justice when: (1) the agency engaged in a prohibited personnel practice; (2) the agency action was clearly without merit or wholly unfounded,

Competitive Innovations, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 28, 2025

The RFQ was an “ordering activity” because it sought to establish BPAs against MAS contracts under FAR Subpart 8.4. Tab 20.1 at AR 828–29, 867. … The parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report by August 13, 2025 including any proposed redactions and must explain why the proposed redacted information qualifies as protected information under the Protective Order

ADVO, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner

141 T.C. 298 · United States Tax Court · Oct 24, 2013

By adopting these regula- tions, Treasury clearly intended a different interpretation of these terms. … the qualifying activ- ity was occurring?

Oliveira v. United States

11 Cl. Ct. 101 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 10, 1986

In this connection, the Federal Circuit recently ruled that the “substantially justified” standard means that the Government must establish that its position in court and at the agency level was clearly reasonable. … upward in order to compensate for some special factor (such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys), or to compensate for inflation.

Y. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 2, 2020

Indeed, it is Respondent’s view that Petitioners have not clearly delineated what A.Y.’s injury actually is. Id. at 6–7. … Varicella is especially dangerous to children and the immune-compromised.

Layno v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 465 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 27, 1994

The appellant claims the BVA erred in determining that he did not present sufficient credible evidence to establish service connection. … The record clearly indicates that the appellant’s service records were destroyed, but it does not appear that the appellant was advised to provide alternate forms of evidence.

Rodriguez ex rel. Estate of Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

91 Fed. Cl. 453 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 22, 2010

And, an abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision is based on clearly erroneous findings of fact, is based on erroneous interpretations of the law, or is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful.” … Thus, her hourly rate determination was not “based on clearly erroneous findings of fact,” was not “based on erroneous interpretations of the law,” and was not “clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful.”

Ideogenics LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 26, 2018

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. … The United States Supreme Court has described the “clearly erroneous” standard as significantly deferential.

Paul G. Wait v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 26, 2020

He no longer argued that VA regulations as a matter of law establish a disability. … The Court clearly and accurately explains how a claimant can establish that his or her subjective pain qualifies as a disability under 38 U.S.C. § 1110 because the pain reaches a level that causes functional impairment of

Gerlach Livestock Co. v. United States

76 F. Supp. 87 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 1, 1948

If this is so, defendant is not immune from liability for property taken in carrying out the project. Cf. Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 , 85 et seq., 27 S.Ct. 655 , 51 L.Ed. 956 ; Horstmann Co. v. … There can be no doubt on the record that defendant’s intention to take plaintiffs’ rights had been clearly demonstrated and that it was in the process of carrying out that intention.

Oryx Energy Co. v. United States Department of Energy

944 F.2d 918 · Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 1991

BACKGROUND This case arose when several oil companies sought to enjoin enforcement of DOE Ruling 1974-29, which advised that injection wells could not be included as wells for determining whether property qualified for the … Disputes regarding the adequacy or timing of escrow deposits relating to that litigation clearly fall within that express exclusion and therefore are outside the scope of the consent decree.

Estate of Di Palma v. Commissioner

71 T.C. 324 · United States Tax Court · Nov 27, 1978

Constance Savarese (Constance), one of decedent’s daughters, qualified as the executrix of decedent’s estate, is still acting as such, and had her residence in Northport, N. … There is no question but that it was not timely filed and that the addition to tax for late filing applies unless petitioner, who has the burden of proof, establishes that the failure to file within the prescribed time was

Morgan Brown

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jul 14, 2016

We have consistently held that, to qualify for a federal service mark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be “lawful.” E.g., The John W. Carson Found. v. … -4- Serial No. 86362968 Every Joe website (everyjoe.com),6 Amazon.com,7 Patch.com,8 and O’Shaughnessy’s online (beyondthc.com),9 clearly indicates that a green

Holmes v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 25, 2019

While our court, as one “established by Act of Congress,” may issue writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), see Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360, 1363 (Fed. … Holmes and any further evidence that he may submit during the remand in accordance with any procedures the board may establish for that purpose.

PARK

14 I. & N. Dec. 734 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1974

The Service rejected the application primarily because the respondent had not established that he was in compliance with the labor certification requirements of the Act. … It appears that the respondent has been found mentally and physi- cally qualified for induction into the United States Army.

Adria Gharati v. Department of the Army

2022 MSPB 16 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jun 22, 2022

General Services Administration, 117 M.S.P.R. 616 (2012), to place the burden on the appellant to “clearly establish” that , but for the agency’s improper actions, she would have applied for the vacancies and … Accordingly, we need not determine whether the appellant “clearly established” that she would have applied and been selected for one of the permanent positions.