Case law

Sheldon v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 51 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1911

The decision of the board is as follows: The merchandise consists of a thick paper of the variety known as “millboard” or “binders’ board.” … Field v. United States (90 Fed. Rep., 412, 33 C. C. A., 138, 139 ); Sullivan v. Robertson (37 Fed. Rep., 778, 779).

Finsilver v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

United States v. Fish, 268 U. S. 607 . … ’s decision rests upon carelessness, and that the case of Fish v.

Benson v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 467 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1913

In Murphy v. Arnson ( 96 U. … In this case there was also a concurring opinion by General Appraiser Somerville, in which he reviewed previous decisions of the courts and board and cited the case of Murphy v. Arnson, supra. The case of Levi v.

International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. United States

509 F.2d 541 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1975

Given this fact, the Board found that the Government possessed, under Radiation Technology, Inc. v. United States, 177 Ct. … For the same reasons stated in note 9 supra, this court has made these findings of fact omitted by the Board. Liles Constr. Co. v. United States, supra; Foster Const. C. A. v.

Utah Construction & Mining Co. v. United States

339 F.2d 606 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 11, 1964

Cl. 432 (1962); but the Supreme Court reversed and held that in the determination of this question we were confined to the evidence admitted before the board. United States v. … In United States v.

Joseph Bell, Sophie Karp, Hyman M. Oberman, Lena Smith, the Rainier Company, Inc., a Dissolved Corporation v. The United States

404 F.2d 975 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 13, 1968

Corp. v. … Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 184, 207 (1966). See, also, T. C. Bateson Constr. Co. v. United States, 149 Ct.Cl. 514, 518 (1960) and River Constr. Corp. v.

Nettie Casey v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 26, 2019

Nolan v. … Moreover, contrary to the appellant's framing of the issues, 74 the Board's reasons or bases were adequate here; we can review this Board decision effectively and think the Board explained its actions sufficiently to enable

Westergaard v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 299 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1932

Brown sauce: Wheat flour is browned and mixed with a little fat. … In the case of United States v.

190920-32341

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jan 29, 2021

Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 330, 333-34 (1997); Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994). … CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Laura C. Owens The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided.

Stone & Downer Co. v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 259 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1931

Again, we said in Casazza & Bro. v. … May Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 266 ; Diana v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 290 ; Kee Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 105 , T. D. 40943. To the same effect is United States v.

Trustees for Arch Preserver Shoe Patents v. James McCreery & Co.

49 F.2d 1068 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1931

Brown, Trade Mark Appln. Ser. No. 21*6,014, Filed June 19, 1925, Reg. March 6, 1928, No. 239,510. “Berenice Brown, Trade Mark Reg. No. 113,556, Reg. O'ct. 24, 1916; “Berenice Brown, Trade Mark Reg. No. 161.351, Reg. … Sharp & Dohme v. Parke, Davis & Co., 37 F.(2d) 960 , 17 C. C. P. A. 842; California Packing’ Corporation v. Tillman & Bendel, Inc., 40 F. (2d) 108, 17 C. C. P. A. 1048; Standard Oil Co. v. Epley, 40 F.(2d) 997 , 17 C.

WONG

13 I. & N. Dec. 258 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1969

This fact caused the Board to enter an order overruling the special inquiry officer, which we with- drew on our own motion on February 23, 1968, when it was I See Wong Kara Cheung v. … Eeperdy, 66 Civ. 3969 (S.D.N.Y., unreported); Wong Kam Cheung v. Esperdy, 274F. app. 485 (S.D.N.Y., 1967) Wong Kam Cheung v.

Morris Shelkofsky v. United States

110 Fed. Cl. 15 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 20, 2013

Shelkofsky presented his claim first to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, so judicial review is limited to the Board’s resolution of the claim. Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. … Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

GONZALEZ

19 I. & N. Dec. 682 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1988

To the extent that any of the Board's prior precedents suggest a different result they are modified. 3 We recognize that on rehearing the court in Arauz v. … One would not know from reading this decision that any existed, and that they exist quite independently of Arauz v. Rivkin, supra, and Shahandeh-Pey v. INS, 831 F.2d 1384 (7th Cir. 1987).

In Re Radiation Incident at Washington, Dc, Etc.

400 F. Supp. 1404 · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · Sep 15, 1975

Powell v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 75-112 District of the District of Columbia Dennis E. Siegel v. Value Engineering Co., et al. Theodore W. Blakeney, Jr. v. Value Engineering Co., et al. Arthur C. … Kappelmann, et ux. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al. Willie L. Evans v. Value Engineering Co., et al. Richard Penna, et al. v. Value Engineering Co., et al.

K-E-S-G

29 I. & N. Dec. 145 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 18, 2025

Hassan v. … It is not the role of the Board to add a specific protected ground that was not included by Congress and the drafters of the Convention and the Protocol. See Chan v.

Instagram, LLC v. Instagoods Pty Ltd

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Oct 11, 2023

Consolidation is discretionary with the Board, and may be ordered upon motion granted by the Board, stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or the Board’s own initiative. See Wis. Cheese Grp., LLC v. … Holdings, Inc. v. N.Y.

RLP Ventures, LLC v. Panini America, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 29, 2023

IP Holder LP v. … See Spiritline Cruises LLC v.

In Re Allen

115 F.2d 936 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1940

“Appellee points out that in the Clement v. Richards v. … It is true that in the case of Clement v. Richards v.

Dean Construction Co., Inc. v. The United States

411 F.2d 1238 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1969

Lee and Co., Inc. v. United States, 164 Ct.Cl. 365, 370 (1964); J. D. Hedin Constr. Co. v. United States, 347 F.2d 235, 245 , 171 Ct.Cl. 70, 84 (1965); Vulcan Rail & Constr. Co. v. … Plaintiff, however, would have us ignore these decisions on the ground that in United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., Inc., and United States v.