Case law

10-00 242

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Feb 29, 2016

Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). … See Wade v. West, 11 Vet. App. 302 (1998). See also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.

09-35 261

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 12, 2011

See Archbold v. Brown, 9 Vet. … See Kitchens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 320 (1995); Brown v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 413, 419 (1993).

Loeb v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1911

Greely’s Administrator v. Burgess ( 18 How., 413 ); Burgess v. Converse (2 Curt. C. C., 216); Stairs v. Peaslee ( 18 How., 521 ); Belcher v. Linn ( 24 How., 508 ). … Nichols v. United States ( 7 Wall., 126 ), Dooley v. United States ( 182 U. S., 222 ), Schillinger v. United States ( 155 U. S., 166 ).

United States v. International Forwarding Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 579 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

United States v. Johnson Co., 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 258 , T. D. 38215; Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 17 , T. D. 40861; Johnson Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 373 , T. … D. 41318; Sandoz Chemical Works v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 466 , T. D. 41365; Metz & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 412 , T. D. 41340.

National Hat Pin Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 435 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1914

In United States v. Lun Chong & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 468 ; T. … United States v. Bennett ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 249 ; T.

Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 6, 2018

BROWN, Petitioner, v. … Rochester v.

Adams v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2025

Porter v. United States, 163 F.3d 1304, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The court owes “substantial deference” to the corrections board; it “does not sit as a ‘super correction board.’” Chapman v. … As an initial matter, a party who makes an argument before the board cannot later complain that the board erred if it adopts or agrees with that argument. Key Pharmaceuticals v.

Kehoskie v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 31 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 17, 1991

The Board found that the evidence submitted by appellant to reopen his claim was duplicative. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a) (1991) evidence is not material if it is cumulative or redundant. See also Colvin v. … A reopening was inappropriate here and, had an error been alleged in the Board’s ensuing review process, such error would be considered harmless. See 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (b) (formerly § 4061(b)); Thompson v.

Rebecca Huey v. Department of Labor

Merit Systems Protection Board · Feb 15, 2023

In its response to the appellant’s petition for review, the agency cites Miller and Brown v. U.S. Postal Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 609, ¶ 15, aff’d, 469 F. App’x 852 (Fed. … Axsom v.

In re Water Rights

39 Pa. D. & C. 261 · Pennsylvania Department of Justice · Aug 5, 1940

In the case of Brown v. … Your final question, unnumbered, which we shall designate no. 6, refers to permits granted by the board pursuant to sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Act of April 8,1937, P.

Dunn v. United States Department of Agriculture

654 F.2d 64 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 17, 1981

United States v. King, 394 U.S. 1, 4 (1960); United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399-400 (1976); United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 207 Ct. Cl. 369 , 518 F.2d 1309 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911 (1976). … Also, in Koehring Co. v. Hyde Constr.

Application of Rudolf Wiechert

370 F.2d 927 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 19, 1967

Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U.S. 543 , 24 S.Ct. 416 , 48 L.Ed. 555 (1904); Butterworth v. United States ex rel. … It seems to us that an invalid appointment would not so vitiate a board’s decision that neither waiver nor abandonment of the defect would be possible. In United States v. L. A.

William L. Schiffman v. The United States

319 F.2d 886 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1963

In Uhley v. … [Caddington v.

Stephen W. Gingery v. Department of Defense

2014 MSPB 59 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jul 28, 2014

See Vigil v. … See Dow v.

Brooks v. United States

213 Ct. Cl. 115 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 23, 1977

In Brenner v. … Moreover, the record as a whole supports an inference that the January OER was in his selection folder when the Selection Board reviewed it for promotion purposes. See Armstrong v. United States, supra; Biddle v.

Social Security Administration v. Gerald I. Krafsur

2015 MSPB 55 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Oct 6, 2015

See 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1); National Labor Relations Board v. Boyce, 51 M.S.P.R. 295, 299-300 (1991). … See, e.g., Turner v. National Transportation Safety Board, 608 F.3d 12, 13, 15-16 (D.C.

Todd Tibbals and Helen A. Tibbals v. The United States

362 F.2d 266 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 10, 1966

See Boeing v. United States, supra, 168 F.Supp. at 767-769, 144 Ct.Cl. at 84-87; Browne v. United States, supra; Burgher v. Campbell, supra, 244 F.2d at 864-865 ; Lakin v. … Gordy v. Commissioner, 36 T.C. 855 (1961), on which plaintiff leans heavily, is distinguished in Browne v. United States, supra. .

Jennifer J. Erlendson v. Department of Justice

2014 MSPB 61 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Aug 4, 2014

. § 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii), cannot file a USERRA appeal with the Board); 2 Hereford v. … See Mitchell v.

Jerome J. Pine v. The United States

371 F.2d 466 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1967

light of Williams v. … There are no unusual circumstances (see footnote 1, supra) excusing plaintiff’s failure to raise this question before the Board of Appeals and Review. Williams v.

United States v. Bloomingdale Bros. & Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 149 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1920

Between the filing of the protests in May, 1914, and the hearing thereof by the board in September, 1918, this court in United States v. Sherman & Sons ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 271 ; T. … In Erhardt v. Schroeder ( 155 U.