Case law

William Ralph Pumphrey v. Department of Defense

2015 MSPB 10 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jan 30, 2015

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985). … Code, and generally is not a matter within the scope of the Board’s review of a furlough action under chapter 75. See Chandler v.

Northwest Automatic Products Corp. v. United States

24 T.C. 460 · United States Tax Court · Jun 23, 1955

Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, Petitioner, v. The United States of America, Respondent Northwest Automatic Products Corp. v. United States Docket No. 798-R. … Browning Chief, Price Adjustment Division Distribution: Mr. Lubin Mr. Cahill Accts. File *469 On that same date, Browning, Chief of Chicago P. A.

Denise Davis v. Department of Defense

2026 MSPB 5 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jun 9, 2026

Walls v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 29 F.3d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994). … The court in Lal relied on the reasoning in Todd v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 55 F.3d 1574 (Fed.

Cosman v. Principi

3 Vet. App. 503 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 1, 1992

. *506 The Board also erred by employing its own unsubstantiated medical opinion. In Colvin v. … Although the Board need not accept a treating physician’s opinion as dispositive, see Sanden v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 97 (1992), it must provide reasons or bases for rejecting it. Gilbert v.

Levy v. United States

40 Cust. Ct. 468 · United States Customs Court · Mar 5, 1958

I always considered that I was purchasing the automobile from the David Brown Company in London. … In the case of Helvering v. San Joaquin Co., 297 U.

Tofe v. Winchell

645 F.2d 58 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1981

However, this Board views the decision in Thompson v. … Loshbough v. Allen, 54 CCPA 1113, 373 F.2d 747 , 152 USPQ 812 (1967). As a final matter, we endorse the procedure by the board indicated by the report of the proceedings in Steierman v.

08-34 074

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Feb 29, 2016

Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). … Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 12, 2018

, Petitioner, v. … See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed.

W. N. Proctor Co. v. United States

4 Cust. Ct. 789 · United States Customs Court · Apr 12, 1940

Kraft Paper: Grey Counter Rolls and sheets: 4785# — $3.55 per 100# less 2% Cif Boston Green Counter Rolls and sheets: 11386# @ $3.60 per 100# less 2% Cif Boston (Export price) Brown Counter Rolls and sheets: 7343# @ $3.50 … That the record in The United States v. Arkell Safety Bag Co.

Wickham Contracting Co. v. United States

546 F.2d 395 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1976

Parenthetically, plaintiff challenges this Board finding on the sole ground that it is irrelevant. Such a challenge, under the circumstances, is without merit. The Board noted that use of a V scale was unusual. … It certainly did not act reasonably under the circumstances and the Board rightly denied its claim. See Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc. v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 135 , 475 F. 2d 630 (1973); see also Snyder Corp. v.

Wallpaper Manufacturers, Ltd. v. Crown Wallcovering Corp.

680 F.2d 755 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1982

The board’s holding that WPML has not lost rights throughout the country means that it has sufficient rights to support its registration. Dawn Donut Co. v. … In Otto Roth & Co. v.

Laws v. United States

27 Ct. Cl. 69 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 14, 1891

In the case of Brown v. The United States ( 18 C. Cls. … And in the case of Young v. The United States ( 19 C. Cls.

Larry D. Ervin v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 318 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 9, 2011

Citing Karnas v. … Simply because a Board decision was "vacated" does not necessarily imply that vacatur resulted from error. See Gordon v.

Community Water Service Co. v. Commissioner

32 B.T.A. 164 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 28, 1935

Old Colony Trust Co. v. Com missioner, 279 U. S. 716 ; Commissioner v. Liberty Bank & Trust Co., 59 Fed. (2d) 320; Sandy Fox v. Commissioner, 75 Fed. (2d) 183. The Board performs judicial functions. Goldsmith v. … Board, 270 U. S. 117 ; Blair v. Oesterlein Machine Co., 275 U. S. 220, 227 ; Uncasville Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner, 55 Fed. (2d) 893, 897; Underwood v. Commissioner, 56 Fed. (2d) 67, 73; Commissioner v.

Edward Kowal v. The United States

412 F.2d 867 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1969

See, e. g., Koppers Co. v. … United States, 164 Ct.Cl. 438, 445 (1964); Finn v. United States, 152 Ct.Cl. 1, 5-7 (1961); Bryant v.

11-15 070

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2015

Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, the objective testing outweighs his lay statement. … Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 428, 435 (2011).

Arthur Venneri Company v. The United States

381 F.2d 748 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1967

Roads Co. v. United States, 355 F.2d 612, 615 , 173 Ct.Cl. 714, 720 (1965); John Reiner & Co. v. … Co. v. United States, 368 F.2d 847 177 Ct.Cl. -, (1966) and Crown Coat Front Co. v.

Citizens Federal Bank v. United States

66 Fed. Cl. 179 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2005

The engagement letter with Alex Brown is dated June 27, 1995, and the board of CSF Holdings did not have the results of Alex Brown’s analysis at its meeting of June 28,1995. … At CSF Holdings’s July 3, 1995 board meeting, Alex Brown presented its analysis of the NationsBank offer.

Engle v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 3, 2026

Baude v. United States, 955 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2020). On remand, Lt Col Engle was selected for continuation by a special board. … On March 15, 2017, the Board denied Lt Col Engle special board consideration. Id. at 2-6; AR 403-07. The Court subsequently upheld the AFBCMR’s denial of special board consideration. Baude v. United States, 137 Fed.

United States v. Macy & Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 245 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

We have uniformly held that *249 the Board of General Appraisers is a judicial tribunal. United States v. Kurtz et al., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 144 ; United States v. McConnaughey Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 112 ; T. D. 40944. … Co. v. Kidd, 146 Fed. 499 ; Rathbone v. Rathbone, 4 Pick. 89 (92). The Board of General Appraisers construed the petition filed in this case as sufficient under Rule XXXVI.