Case law

United States v. Rothschild

3 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.

Application of Hans Hilmer, Gerhard Korger, Rudi Weyer and Walter Aumuller

359 F.2d 859 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 28, 1966

As of now, of course, three board opinions are public. See Lilly v. Brenner, discussed infra. November 1964, a Commentary, by Gary A. … Nine years pass without a decision and we then come to Viviani v. Taylor v.

Uhley v. United States

121 F. Supp. 674 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 8, 1954

Under these statutes and regulations, the determination of the underlying facts must be made by retiring boards. As stated by the court in Spencer v. … The Army Regulations * * * in effect at the time plaintiff went before a retiring board, make no distinction between these classes of officers.” See, also, to the same effect, Hamrick v.

Cuiffo v. United States

137 F. Supp. 944 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 1, 1955

In Moore v. … In Martilla v.

Paul Andrew Frutiger

United States Tax Court · Mar 11, 2024

King, 576 U.S. at 486 (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000)). … A Board decision in the veteran’s favor, on the other hand, is final.

United States v. Scanlan

5 Ct. Cust. 290 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1914

D. 31507); Tilge v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 149 ; T. D. 31676); Oelrichs v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 355 ; T. D. 32091); Maddaus v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 330 ; T. D. 32623). … See Beard v. Porter ( 124 U. S., 437 ).

Michelle Shows v. Department of the Treasury

2025 MSPB 5 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Nov 25, 2025

’s decision in Chin v. … See Crosby v. U.S.

James Alfred Martin v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation

422 F.2d 918 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1970

We are aware that appellant alleges error in the board’s refusal to let appellant, during the appeal period, amend the description of the goods. This, however, is not an appealable matter. 2 . Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. … Gulf States Paper Corp., 150 U.S.P.Q. 700 (TTAB 1966), and Southern Shell Fish Co. v. S. Felicione & Sons Fish Co., 108 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Com’r 1956).

KID-Systeme GmbH v. Türk Hava Yollari Teknik Anonim Sirketi

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jan 12, 2018

See Blansett Pharmacal Co., Inc. v. Carmrick Labs., Inc., 25 USPQ2d 1473, 1476 (TTAB 1992). … Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice, 81 Fed. Reg. 19296, 19296 (April 4, 2016) (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) (emphasis added); see also Estudi Moline Dissey, S.L. v.

Myers v. Feigelman

455 F.2d 596 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1972

Sloan v. Peterson, supra note 3. Accordingly, it is an issue which should have been considered independently by the board. … While we undoubtedly have the power to proceed on our own and decide questions not reached by the board which become relevant only because we have reversed the board on questions which they did reach, Sloan v.

Buch Express, Inc. v. United States

132 F. Supp. 473 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1955

See Northern Pump Co. v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. R. Co., 190 I.C.C. 421 , 422; Markstein v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 243 I.C.C. 345 , 348; Linen Thread Co., Inc. v. … Anthony v. Director General, 61 I.C.C. 366 , 368; Simon v. Southern Railway, 102 I.C.C. 326 ; Union Smelting & Refining Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 152 I.C.C. 434 , 436; Lynchburg Iron & Metal Co. v.

Electric Boat Corporation

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · May 7, 2019

January 24, 2019 at 2) Subsequent to the Board's order, Electric Boat did, in fact, seek review of our December 10, 2018 decision before the Federal Circuit. Electric Boat Corp. v. … For the reasons stated above. we grant Electric Boat's motion to stay proceedings pending the Federal Circuit's resolution of Electric Boat Corp. v. Secretary of the Navy, No. 19-1621 (Fed.

United States v. Borgfeldt

13 Ct. Cust. 620 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 15, 1926

Krusi v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 168 , T. D. 31213; United States v. Perkins, Id. 323, T. D. 31430; Wolff v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 11 , T. D. 31572; United States v. … In Illfelder v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 109 , T.

William R. Sherwin, D/B/A Sherwin Electric Service v. The United States

436 F.2d 992 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1971

Co. v. United States, 337 F.2d 861 , 162 Ct.Cl. 802 and WPC Enterprises, Inc. v. … Co. v.

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.

Wilson v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 16 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 13, 1991

See also Hatlestad, 1 Vet.App. at 169 , 170 (remanded in part for the Board to provide reasons or bases for its assessment of appellant’s personal, sworn testimony as evidence); Webster v. … Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 155, 159 (1991) (remanded in part for the Board to provide reasons or bases in assessing the sworn testimony of appellant and his physician); Ohland v.

Darrow v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 303 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 17, 1992

Darrow, appeals an August 15, 1990, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board or BVA) decision. … Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 , 105 S.Ct. 1649, 1655 , 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985). See also Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 599 , 108 S.Ct. 2047, 2051-52 , 100 L.Ed.2d 632 (1988). Cf. Service v.

Holihan v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

45 Fed. Cl. 201 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 14, 1999

Brown, 1989 WL 250117 , at *15-16. Upon review, the United States Claims Court agreed with the special master that Brown failed to prove entitlement and specifically declined to disturb this finding. Brown v. … While the Brown and Wasson cases are not binding on this court, Schwenk v.

Hearne v. United States

68 F. Supp. 786 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1946

The plaintiff’s situation is substantially identical with that of Townsley who was given a judgment by this court, Townsley v. … Justice Day speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States in Norris v.

Joshua R. Marcantel v. Department of Energy

2014 MSPB 50 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jul 15, 2014

Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180, 184 (1980). … FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________ William D. Spencer Clerk of the Board Washington, D.C.