Case law

William L. Schiffman v. The United States

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

In Uhley v. … [Caddington v.

Nab-Lord Associates v. United States

682 F.2d 940 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 2, 1982

Our analysis of whether a contractor properly invokes the provisions of the act can be found in Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. … As we stated in Tapper & Associates 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.

Sanders

521 F.2d 1406 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 13, 1975

DeBow v. United States, 193 Ct. Cl. 499, 504 , 434 F. 2d 1333 (1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 846 (1971); Ray v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 1 , 453 F. 2d 754 (1972); Denton v. *964 United States, 204 Ct. … Further, the court has found that there must be satisfactory indication that a correction board’s decision is based “upon a balanced consideration of all the evidence available and presented.” Smith v.

Garden City Feeder Co. v. Commissioner

27 B.T.A. 1132 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 10, 1933

Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U. S. 117 ; Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589 . … United States ex rel James McCandless v. Board, 26 Fed. (2d) 1003.

Betts v. United States

172 F. Supp. 450 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 8, 1959

Eicks v. United States, Ct.Cl., 172 F.Supp. 445 decided this day, and the cases therein cited. The Government raises a question of the law of the Constitution. … See Friedman v. United States, 158 F.Supp. 364, 374 , 141 C.Cl.-; Eicks v. United States, supra.

C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States

135 F. Supp. 874 · United States Customs Court · Mar 10, 1955

Brown v. State of Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 , 25 U.S. 419, 437, 438 , 6 L.Ed. 678 . See also Pacific Insurance Co. v. … The judgment of our appellate court was affirmed in Board of Trustees of University of Il. v.

Cook v. United States

85 Fed. Cl. 820 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 23, 2009

Co. v. … See Cameron v.

Saber Interactive Incorporated v. Oovee Ltd

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 1, 2022

v. Selkow, 92 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (TTAB 2009). The Board has the authority to strike an impermissible or insufficient claim from a pleading. Finanz St. Honore, B.V. v. … Inc. v. Qinqdao Brewery, 17 USPQ2d 1137, 1139 (TTAB 1990); see also TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (“TBMP”) § 506.01 (2020).

Harold Grubin v. The United States

333 F.2d 861 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 12, 1964

We have specifically ruled that Disposition Boards are not competent or proper boards to determine retirement for disability. Hoppock v. United States, supra. … See finding 24(f) (g); Weiner v. United States, 148 Ct.Cl. 445, 454-455 (1960); Harper v. United States, Ct.Cl., No. 206-59, decided Nov. 7, 1962, slip op., p. 5, 310 F.2d 405 , 408; Dickson v.

In Re the Department of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litigation

472 F. Supp. 1282 · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · Jun 29, 1979

Brown after Judge Theis recused himself from presiding in the action. … Our ruling, of course, does not upset the assignment of the Cities Service action to Judge Brown.

George D. Harter Bank v. Commissioner

27 B.T.A. 941 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 16, 1933

See Weiss v. Weiner, 279 U. S. 333 ; Burke-Waggoner Oil Ass’n. v. Hopkins, 269 U. S. 110 ; United States v. Childs, 266 U. S. 304 . … See also Bankers Pocahontas Coal Co. v. Burnet, 287 U. S. 308 , and Strother v. Burnet, 287 U. S. 314 .

Constance A. West v. Department of Health and Human Services

2015 MSPB 34 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Apr 30, 2015

In such appeals, the merits of the agency’s decision are not before the Board. Hope v. Department of the Army, 108 M.S.P.R. 6, ¶ 7 (2008). … See Rivera v.

Kentucky Bar Foundation, Inc., etc. v. Commissioner

78 T.C. 921 · United States Tax Court · Jun 9, 1982

Louis Union Trust Co. v. United States , 374 F.2d 427 (8th Cir. 1967) , and Dulles v. Johnson , 273 F.2d 362 (2d Cir. 1959) , followed. Bart A. Brown, Jr ., and Ronald D. Aucutt , for the petitioner. Carolyn A. … Louis Union Trust Co. v. United States , 374 F.2d 427 (8th Cir. 1967) , and Dulles v.

ARCINIEGAS-PATINO

28 I. & N. Dec. 883 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jan 17, 2025

On July 29, 2023, the Board set a briefing schedule for the respondents’ appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1). … See Matter of Arambula-Bravo, 28 I&N Dec. 388, 395 (BIA 2021) (recognizing that “[a]dministrability is important” (quoting City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1038 (9th Cir. 2020))).