Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.73s
Richard Heller v. Denis McDonough
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 21, 2024
See Bond v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 376, 377 (1992) (per curiam); see also Mokal v. … " (citing Ferko v.
Cited 0 timesPublished213 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.
Cited 8 timesPublished3 Ct. Cust. 330 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1912
The board affirmed the validity of the reappraisement upon the theory that the decision in Oelrichs & Co. v. United States, decided by this court ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 355 ; T. … The board stated: In Oelrichs v. United States, decided by the Customs Court December 6, 1911 (T. D. 32091), we understand the Tilge case to have been modified in this respect.
Cited 7 timesPublishedStephen W. Gingery v. Department of Defense
2014 MSPB 59 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jul 28, 2014
See Vigil v. … See Dow v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedSaint-Gobain Corporation v. 3M Company
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Aug 31, 2007
Edward Weck Inc. v. … See Kasco Corp. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedHardware Res., Inc. v. United States
744 F. Supp. 3d 1358 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 16, 2024
Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 851 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017). … See SMA Surfaces, Inc. v. United States, 617 F.
Cited 1 timesPublishedEggers & Higgins and Edwin A. Keeble Associates, Inc. (A Joint Venture) v. The United States
403 F.2d 225 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 15, 1968
Todd v. U. S. [ 292 F.2d 841 ], 155 Ct.Cl. 87 ; Maxan Dress Corp. v. U. S. [ 115 F.Supp. 439 ], 126 Ct.Cl. 434 . … In Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v.
Cited 23 timesPublished101 Fed. Cl. 592 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 7, 2011
Sanders v. … See Bond v.
Cited 12 timesPublished215 Ct. Cl. 998 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 16, 1977
Donna Jean, Inc. v. United States, No. 105-77, is pending before Trial Judge White. … Leonard v. United States, No. 121-77, and Litrico v. United States, No. 517-77, are pending before Trial Judge Yock. Trial Judge Yock suspended proceedings in Leonard.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBoard of Veterans' Appeals · Nov 30, 2016
See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999) (remand not required under Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. … App. 268 (1998), where the Board's remand instructions were substantially complied with), aff'd, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (2002).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedTodd 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. .
Cited 24 timesPublishedMark Smith Construction Co. v. United States
33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,510 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 31, 1986
Motion(s) for dismissal, without prejudice, as to claims later filed in this court as Counts I—III and V, were filed with the Board. … the Board in dismissing the appeal did so without prejudice, National Electric Coil, 227 Ct.Cl. 596 -97; Gregory Lumber Co. v.
Cited 29 timesPublished96 F. Supp. 326 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 3, 1951
Co. v. United States, 28 F. Supp. 916, 917, 918 ; affirmed, 308 U. … R. 1935, relating to investigations of loyalty (section 9A (1), Act of August 2, 1939, supra) and administration of Employees Loyalty Program in the Executive Branch of the Government, provided in Part V, paragraph 1, as
Cited 15 timesPublishedIn re Starbucks Corp. Access for Individuals With Disabilities Litig.
326 F. Supp. 3d 1370 · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · Aug 1, 2018
No. 3:16-06792 JOHNSON v. BLACKHAWK CENTERCAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02454 JOHNSON v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:17-06836 JOHNSON v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:18-01134 JOHNSON v. … In all actions, plaintiff is represented by the Center for Disability Access and Starbucks is represented by Burnham Brown.
Cited 6 timesPublishedPorto Rico Brokerage Co. v. United States
76 F.2d 605 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 19, 1935
Marriott v. Brune et al., 9 How. (50 U. S.) 619, 631, 13 L. Ed. 282 ; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. (75 U. S.) 123, 136, 19 L. Ed. 382 ; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622 , 5 S. Ct. 1091 , 29 L. … Ed. 257 ; Pittsburgh & Southern Coal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590, 600 , 15 S. Ct. 459 , 39 L. Ed. 544 ; Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture of North Carolina, 171 U. S. 345, 353 , 18 S. Ct. 862 , 43 L.
Cited 7 timesPublishedSpecial Counsel ex rel. Judy Kachanes v. Department of Agriculture
Merit Systems Protection Board · Sep 3, 2014
JUDY KACHANES, CB-1208-14-0021-U-2 Petitioner, v. … THIS STAY ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL ∗ Peta-Gay Irving Brown, Esquire, Oakland, California, for the petitioner.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished1 Vet. App. 195 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 4, 1991
Section 4003(a) of title 38 formerly stated that the “determination of the section [of the Board] ... shall be the final determination of the Board, except that the Board on its own motion may correct an obvious error in … See also First Nat’l Bank of Salem, Ohio v. Hirsch, 535 F.2d 343, 345 (6th Cir.1976); Ferrell v. Trailmobile, Inc., 223 F.2d 697, 698 (7th Cir.1955); Corning Glass Works v.
Cited 57 timesPublishedRevolution Jewelry Works, Inc. v. Stonebrook Jewelry, LLC DBA Revolution Jewelry
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Mar 7, 2022
Nabisco Inc. v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. … Inc. v. PC Auth.
Cited 0 timesPublished147 F. Supp. 280 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1956
survey, or disposition board, the findings and decisions of such board * * *. … In Womer v. United States, 114 C. Cls. 415 , and other cases including Frame v. United States, 124 C. Cls. 557 , cert. den. 345 U.
Cited 2 timesPublished63 Fed. Cl. 8 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 18, 2004
No. 04-485T; Martinez v. United States, Fed.Cl. No. 04-576T; Looney v. United States, Fed.Cl. No. 04-605T; Vories v. United States, Fed.Cl. No. 04-606T; Wallace v. United States, Fed.Cl. No. 04-793T; Brown v. … Concerned about plaintiffs attempts to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, the court therefore DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board for action.
Cited 10 timesPublished
Ask Donna