Case law

Topco Holdings, Inc. v. Hand 2 Hand Industries, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jan 12, 2022

Corp. v. Gilad Dev. Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1294, 1297 (TTAB 2010). See also TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (“TBMP”) § 507.02 (2021). … Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 113 USPQ2d 1029, 1039 n.19 (TTAB 2014) (Board may sua sponte strike any insufficiently pleaded claim).

Sol O. Schlesinger, D.B.A. Ideal Uniform Cap Company v. The United States

383 F.2d 1004 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 13, 1967

See United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 , 86 S.Ct. 1545 , 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966), and United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., 384 U.S. 424 , 86 S.Ct. 1539 , 16 L.Ed.2d 662 (1966). … Ever since United States v.

Nielsen-Dillingham Builders, J.V. v. United States

43 Fed. Cl. 5 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 6, 1999

Plaintiff appealed the decision to the VA Board of Contract Appeals. … Co. v. United States, 962 F.2d 998, 1003 (Fed.Cir.1992). Each part of a contract must be read together and harmonized, if at all possible. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v.

Pittsburgh Laundry, Inc. v. Commissioner

47 B.T.A. 230 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 30, 1942

With reference to the purchase of stock in the petitioner corporation, the minute book of the board of directors of the petitioner showed as follows: On August 15, 1933, in connection with certain life insurance policies … Brown Shoe Co., 45 B. T. A. 212. A profit was made on resale of petitioner’s own stock. Allen v. National Manufacture & Stores Corporation, 125 Fed. (2d) 239.

Michael Levinson v. Michael L. Levinson

2023 MSPB 20 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jul 12, 2023

Rather, it concerns the scope of appropriate relief when the Board reverses an agency’s action. Cloude v. … The Board may rely on a prior reprimand as past discipline. See, e.g., Byers v.

12-34 387

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Oct 31, 2016

After a careful review of the file, the Board finds that all necessary development has been accomplished, and therefore appellate review may proceed without prejudice to the Veteran. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. … See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) (2015); Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337, 338-39 (1996). The threshold factor is whether the disability picture presented in the record is adequately contemplated by the rating schedule.

Burger Chef Systems, Inc. v. Sandwich Chef, Inc.

608 F.2d 875 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 25, 1979

Martin v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 422 F.2d 918, 920 , 57 CCPA 968, 970, 165 USPQ 171 , 172 cert. denied, 400 U.S. 911 , 91 S.Ct. 140 , 27 L.Ed.2d 151 (1970). See Tektronix, Inc. v. … Appellant cites Burger Chef Systems, Inc. v.

SOLEIMANI

20 I. & N. Dec. 99 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1989

The Board finds that her deportability has been established by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, as required by Woodby v. … In the latter decision, the Board relied on Rosenberg v.

Hesse v. Commissioner

7 T.C. 700 · United States Tax Court · Sep 10, 1946

The question presented calls for construction of section 22 (k) in the light of the situation in the State of Pennsylvania where alimony is allowed to a spouse who receives a limited divorce, a divorce from bed and board … Brown, 7 T. C. 715 . The sums in question are periodic payments received subsequent to the decree of divorce. The narrow question is whether the payments were made under a written instrument incident to such divorce.

Loblaw Groceterias, Inc. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 479 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1935

See American Express Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 146 , T. D. 33434; Maier, Morton & Browne v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 115 , T. D. 38753. … In Maier, Morton & Browne v. United States, supra, goods manufactured in England wer sold and delivered to a company at Montreal, Canada. These wer shipped in bond, and were exported to the United.

Dalton v. United States

71 Ct. Cl. 421 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 12, 1931

Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 273 Fed. 886 ; Traylor Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 277 Fed. 248 ; United States v. Matthews, 282 Fed. 266 ; Buffalo Union Furnace Co. v. U. … Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. Tabas, 22 Fed. (2d) 398. In United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v.

Furlong v. United States

146 F. Supp. 823 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 5, 1956

Some of the many other cases in which we have followed this rule are Hornblass v. United States, 93 Ct.Cl. 148 ; Hermann v. United States, 81 F.Supp. 830 , 113 Ct. Cl. 54 ; Pacific Maritime Association v. … Ordinarily the time for an officer to make application to go before a retiring board is before he is separated from the service, but there is no requirement that he do so then or not at all. See Updike v.

David Boland, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Mar 22, 2024

Brian V. Johnson, Esq. Baker & Hostetler, LLP Washington, DC APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. … foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 63007, 63008, Appeals of David Boland, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Huffaker v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 662 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 9, 1983

Plaintiff, relying on Friedman v. … As the court noted in Quirk v.

Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States

29 Fed. Cl. 197 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 16, 1993

Brown v. … Our ease is substantially different from Cali and Brown v. Duchesne.

Reichert v. Commissioner

19 T.C. 1027 · United States Tax Court · Mar 10, 1953

Applying the rule laid down in Cohan v. … Brown, the facts are different and we have so found. The first contribution was $5,000 in 1945. Brown’s company was in the wholesale liquor business.

Shaw v. United States

622 F.2d 520 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 30, 1980

Friedman v. United States 159 Ct. Cl. 1, 11 , 310 F.2d 381, 387 (1962), cert. denied sub nom. Lipp v. United States, 373 U.S. 932 (1963). See Wright v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 831 (1974). In Williams v. … Horne v. United States, supra at 150, 419 F.2d at 419 ; Dargo v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 1193, 1206 (1966).

Crumley v. United States

133 Fed. Cl. 607 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 18, 2017

Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Finally, the plaintiff must overcome the presumption of regularity which attaches to actions of the military and military records correction boards. … Armstrong v. United States, 205 Ct.

Andrew R. Flanders v. DiMarzio, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 12, 2020

See also Jain v. … See Multisorb Tech., Inc. v.

Alfred A. Altimont, Inc. v. United States

579 F.2d 622 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1978

Miller, Inc. v. United States, supra. … Co. v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 1, 6 , 314 F.2d 501 , 504 (1963). As was mentioned briefly at the outset, the board reached its outcome by a different route..