Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.39s
Johnson & Sons Erectors Co. v. United States
30 Cont. Cas. Fed. 70,001 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 18, 1982
E.g., Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc. v. United States, 201 Ct.Cl. 135 , 475 F.2d 630 (1973). A horrible example of the consequences of this happening is afforded by Spearin v. … Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 639 , 528 F.2d 1392 (1976).
Cited 7 timesPublishedStone & Downer Co. v. United States
8 Ct. Cust. 368 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 30, 1918
The Board, of General Appraisers overruled the protest. The importers appeal. The legislative history of these provisions is instructive. … United States ( 172 Fed., 173 ), held that “ olein” was properly dutiable under tbe provisions of paragraph 3 of tbe act of 1897, ás a “distilled oil.” • The court pertinently said: In Movius v.
Cited 0 timesPublished21 I. & N. Dec. 254 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1996
V. … Yeung v.
Cited 28 timesPublished13 T.C. 840 · United States Tax Court · Nov 30, 1949
Gardner v. Herbert, 5 Pac. (2d) 782 ; Brown v. Brown, 73 Pac. (2d) 795 . … Brown v. Brown, supra; Ford v. Ford, 155 Pac. (2d) 485 ; White v. White, 163 Pac. (2d) 137 ; State v. Superior Court, 164 Pac. (2d) 890 .
Cited 1 timesPublished18 Cl. Ct. 860 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1989
When an eligibility determination has been committed to the expertise of a specialized review board, the military correction boards review its decisions. See Muse v. … Citing Sorrough v.
Reversed on other grounds by Matthew H. Sawyer v. The United States, 930 F.2d 1577 (1991)Cited 5 timesPublishedBoard of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 12, 2011
See Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 395 (1996); Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163, 166 (1996). … See West (Carlton) v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 70, 76 (1994); Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 91, 98 (1993).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedBoard of Veterans' Appeals · Nov 28, 2014
AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38-39 (1993). … For these reasons, the Board finds that the criteria for referral for extraschedular rating have not been met. See Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88, 96 (1996); Shipwash v. Brown, 8 Vet.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedArmed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Aug 13, 2025
Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Dalton, 126 F.3d 1442, 1447-48 (Fed. … In ECC Int’l Constructors, LLC v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSpliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor B.V. v. United Yacht Transport LLC dba United Yacht Transport
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 2, 2020
The Board has broad discretion in managing discovery in its proceedings. FMR Corp. v. … Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesPublished35 B.T.A. 1064 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 30, 1937
It has been held that this Board is not obligated to accept opinion evidence as to value: Tracy v. Commissioner, 53 Fed. (2d) 575; Uncasville Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner, 55 Fed. (2d) 893. … A. 164; John Crosby Brown, 21 B. T. A. 176; William E. Steinback, 30 B. T. A. 1252; Gowen v. Commissioner, 65 Fed. (2d) 923, affirming 24 B. T. A. 1028; Sacks v. Commissioner, 66 Fed. (2d) 308, affirming 25 B. T.
Cited 14 timesPublishedIntel Singapore, Ltd. v. United States
19 Ct. Int'l Trade 644 · United States Court of International Trade · May 4, 1995
The court explores, rather, the fundamental capabilities of the Boards once such instructions — like other types of software — are in place. See generally Nord Light, Inc. v. … Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 25, 29 , C.D. 4784 (1979)).) Intel defines “machine” out of context.
Cited 1 timesPublishedBoard of Veterans' Appeals · Apr 29, 2016
Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). Rather, the evidence must show that he is incapable "of performing the physical and mental acts required" to be employed. Id. at 363. … See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994) (two issues are "inextricably intertwined" when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision cannot be rendered unless both are adjudicated).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished652 F.2d 70 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 10, 1981
Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82 (1921); Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290 (1900); Wathen v. United States, supra, 208 Ct. Cl. at 352 , 527 F.2d at 1197 . … Crisan v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 682 (1980); Wathen v. United States, supra, 208 Ct. Cl. at 351 , 527 F.2d at 1197 ; Morelli v. United States, supra, 177 Ct. Cl. at 858; Knotts v. United States, 128 Ct.
Cited 13 timesPublished185 Ct. Cl. 454 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 18, 1968
Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 (1957) ; Conn v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 120 , 376 F. 2d 878 (1967) ; Cole v. United States, 171 Ct. Cl. 178 (1965) ; Middleton v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 36 (1965) ; Sofranoff v. … In Birt v.
Cited 33 timesPublished21 I. & N. Dec. 235 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1996
Dissenting Opinion: HURWITZ, Board Member, joined by VACCA, Board Member. … Adams v. County of Sacramento, supra, at 141; see also Meyer v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra; In re Phillips, 109 P.2d 344 (Cal. 1941).
Cited 14 timesPublishedBoard of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 30, 2021
See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994). … See Jones v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 134, 137-138 (1994).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedWorkmen's Compensation Compromises
38 Pa. D. & C. 372 · Pennsylvania Department of Justice · May 10, 1940
It is to be noted that section 503 states that the Workmen’s Compensation Board of the Department of Labor and Industry “may” approve compromise settlements, and that there is no requirement upon the board to approve. … After the decision in Rich Hill Co. et al. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBoard of Veterans' Appeals · Feb 27, 2015
Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. … Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedInternational Cigar Mach. Co. v. Commissioner
36 B.T.A. 124 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 16, 1937
Brown v. Helvering, 291 U. S. 193 . … Reviewed by the Board. Decision will be entered under Rule 50.
Cited 0 timesPublished3 Ct. Cust. 251 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1912
De Vries, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal brings here for consideration a question of practice by a board of three general appraisers sitting as a classification board. ■ The procedure of the board, … Customs administrative law (sec. 12); Kingman v. Western Manufacturing Co. ( 170 U. S., 675, 680 ); International Trust Co. v. Weeks ( 193 U. S., 667 ); Van Stone and Stillwell v. Bierce Manufacturing Co. ( 142 U.
Cited 5 timesPublished
Ask Donna