Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersFS

10,000+ results

3.23s

  • Williams Building Company, Inc.

    Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Oct 5, 2017

    O'CONNELL 0 L:,v"-~~ Administrative Judge Armed Services … Building Company, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Allard Nazarian Group, Inc. dba Granite State Manufacturing

    Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jun 12, 2024

    Roger V. Abbott, Esq. Miles & Stockbridge P.C. Washington, D.C. … conformance with the Board’s Charter.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Trent D. Engler v. Department of the Army

    2014 MSPB 71 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Sep 3, 2014

    ANALYSIS ¶6 The Board has jurisdiction over appeals only from the types of agency actions specifically enumerated by law, rule, or regulation. Perez v. … Abbott v. U.S. Postal Service, 121 M.S.P.R. 294, ¶ 6 (2014); Yarnell v. Department of Transportation, 109 M.S.P.R. 416, ¶ 10 (2008).

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Hassay v. United States

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 27, 2025

    The Board reasoned that Dr. Foote’s opinion was not supported by objective evidence. Id. V. … Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); see also Chappell v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Haskins v. United States

    51 Fed. Cl. 818 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 13, 2002

    Voge v. … See Hary v.

    Cited 28 timesPublished
  • 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).

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Commissioner

    22 B.T.A. 507 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 4, 1931

    Cls. 178; Kales v. Woodworth, 20 Fed. (2d) 395; Rosetta v. Hauss, 12 B. T. A. 755. … Brown Co., 8 B. T. A. 112; Crown Willamette Paper Co., supra.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Workmen'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 timesPublished
  • Derek J. Morris v. Department of the Navy

    2016 MSPB 37 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Oct 31, 2016

    . ¶13 Litigants before the Board are expected to comply with all orders issued by the Board and to comply with the Board’s regulations. See Mendoza v. … And, in Fleming v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Wheeler v. United States

    11 Ct. Cust. 110 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1921

    court (United States v. … Mexican Hardwood Lumber Co. v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • P. A. B. Produits et Appareils de Beaute v. Satinine Societa in Nome Collettivo di S.A. e. M. Usellini

    570 F.2d 328 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 16, 1978

    See Dudley v. South Jersey Metal, Inc., 555 F.2d 96 (3d Cir. 1977); Sadowski v. Bombardier Ltd., 539 F.2d 615 (7th Cir. 1976); Havenfield Corp. v. … See Dudley v. South Jersey Metal, Inc., supra; Sadow-ski v. Bombardier Ltd., supra; Havenfield Corp. v. H & R Block, Inc., supra. Petitioner had the burden of establishing nonuse for two consecutive years.

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • ROBLES

    24 I. & N. Dec. 22 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2006

    Cooper, Esquire, Davis, California BEFORE: Board Panel: FILPPU and PAULEY, Board Members; O’LEARY, Temporary Board Member PAULEY, Board Member: In a decision dated December 21, 2005, an Immigration Judge found … Arenas-Yepes v.

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • 16-45 046

    Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 25, 2018

    This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). … BROWN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • 12-15 060

    Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 31, 2014

    Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. … See generally Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • 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 timesPublished
  • Fallo v. Derwinski

    1 Vet. App. 175 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 14, 1991

    In short, the Board’s finding and conclusions in this case are so vague that it is impossible to review them. In Gilbert v. … In Murphy v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • United States v. Murphy

    16 Ct. Cust. 461 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1929

    Section 501 of the act provides that the decision of the appraiser, the single general appraiser, or the board of three, as the case may be, shall be final and conclusive upon all parties. … See Carey & Skinner v. United States, T. D. 43118, and United States v. F. D. Vandegrift & Co. et al., T. D. 43120, herein decided November 30, 1928.)

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Loral Electronics Corporation v. The United States

    387 F.2d 975 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1967

    The Board correctly stated that the trier must look to the facts and circumstances showing the parties’ intention at the time of the execution of the agreement. See, e. g. Benton v. … Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 490 , 71 S.Ct. 456, 466 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • 12-07 363

    Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 29, 2014

    Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 43-44 (1993). Consequently, allegations of CUE must be brought with specificity. See, e.g., Phillips v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 25 (1997). … See Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242, 245 (1994) (citing Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313-14 (1992) (en banc).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • United States v. Michelson & Co.

    12 Ct. Cust. 402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1924

    In Loeb v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 385 ; T. … In McKesson & Robbins v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 459 ; T.

    Cited 9 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.