Case law

10-19 537

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 31, 2015

. § 3.310 (2014); Allen v. Brown, 1 Vet. … The Board also considered whether service connection was warranted with proof of direct causation. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Ramey v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 40, 44 (1996), aff'd sub nom.

Reappointment of a Member of the National Credit Union Administration Board

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Dec 10, 2021

The question arises from the pending nomination of the incumbent Board Chairman, Todd Harper, for reappointment as a member of the Board. 1 Chairman Harper was first appointed by the President as a member of the Board on … O.L.C. 291, 292 (2004) (“Civil Rights Commission”) (quoting United States v. Wilson, 290 F.3d 347, 353 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).

United States v. Oberle

1 Ct. Cust. 527 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1911

In view of the rule of the board it would seem unimportant. … United States v. Reibe (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., p. 19; T. D. 30776).

14-20 069

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 31, 2014

Accordingly, it is not prejudicial for the Board to decide the issue of entitlement to accrued benefits without further development. Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993). II. … See Zevalkink v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 483, 489-490 (1994), aff'd, 102 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

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.

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States

511 F.2d 529 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 19, 1976

In Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. v. United States, 179 Ct. … Co. v. United States, 204 Ct.

Adams v. United States

126 Fed. Cl. 645 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 9, 2016

Jordan Pond Co., LLC v. United States, 115 Fed. … Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). The court is limited to a review of the record that was before the corrections board. Metz v.

US Pan American Solutions, LLC

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Aug 6, 2025

Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, USPAS has not presented any new evidence demonstrating that the time period was extended. … Corp. v. United States, 4 F.3d 961, 963 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (discussing the exclusion of weekends and federal holidays as the end point in computing timely filings).

B. Altman & Co. v. United States

13 Cust. Ct. 56 · United States Customs Court · Jul 22, 1944

retained by the board among the files of the case, but at the trial before the board they were not competent evidence of the facts stated in them. … This statement finds no contradiction in our decision in United States v. Borgfeldt & Co. ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 129 ; T. D. 38934) which is relied upon by the importers.

TORRENS v. COMMISSIONER

31 B.T.A. 787 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 30, 1934

Brown, Executrix, 26 B. T. A. 901, affirmed in Commissioner v. Brown, 69 Fed. (2d) 602; certiorari denied, 293 U. S. 570 ; Robert R. Meyer, 27 B. T. A. 44; Louis Rorimer, 27 B. T. A. 871; T. Pierre Champion, 27 B. T. … Brown, Executrix, supra, we stated: The ordinary intendment and purpose of the statute [section 201 (g), 1926 Act] is plain enough. A stock dividend being constitutionally free from tax, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.

United States v. P. C. Kuyper & Co.

17 C.C.P.A. 139 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 13, 1929

Justice Brown, speaking for the court, affirmed the decision of Mr. Chief Justice Fischer. The Government has appealed to this court and assigns numerous allegations of error. … Said section 508 reads as follows: Collectors, appraisers, general appraisers, and boards of general appraisers may cite to appear before them or any of them and to examine upon oath, which said officers or any of them are

KERBAUCH v. COMMISSIONER

29 B.T.A. 1014 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 6, 1934

The Circuit Court of Appeals, in Budd v. … Rea Gano, 19 B.T.A. 518 ; Budd v. Commissioner, supra.

Mullen v. United States

17 Cl. Ct. 578 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 4, 1989

In Mulvaney v. … Circuit in Baxter v.

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.

Monroe-Goldkamp Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 545 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581 ; Pugh v. Bluff City Excursion Co., 177 Fed. 399 ; Felton v. Spiro, 78 Fed. 576 . … D. 41341; Bache & Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 507 .

Abruzzo v. United States

513 F.2d 608 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1975

Denton v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 188 (1974); Mercereau v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 157, 158 (1961). … Trifunovich v. United States, supra at 804 n.1.

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).

Volunteer State Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner

35 B.T.A. 491 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 16, 1937

Standard Supply Co. v. Delmar Coal Co., 110 W. Va. 560 ; 158 S. E. 907 . The order in question was a disposition of the suit by the parties and not by the Board, Berry v. Somerset R. Co., 89 Me. 552 ; 36 Atl. 904 . … Commissioner v. Cummings, 77 Fed. (2d) 670; Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley R. R., 243 U. S. 281 ; Smith v. Commissioner, 59 Fed. (2d) 533; United States v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 265 .

United States v. Lun Chong

3 Ct. Cust. 468 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1912

Under rule 34 of the board it is incumbent upon a party, desiring to have the testimony of a case previously decided considered, to proceed by motion. See United States v. Oberle ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 527 ; T. … See Shallus v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 52 ; T. D. 32347).

Whelan v. United States

40 Cust. Ct. 192 · United States Customs Court · Apr 17, 1958

Whelan & Sons v. United States, 34 Cust. Ct. 208 , .C. … Goldman v. United States, 87 Fed. 193 ; Nairn Linoleum Co. v. United States, 151 Fed. 955 ; Lang et al. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 464 , T. D. 33881; H. Muehlstein & Co., Inc., and F. L. Kraemer & Co. v.