Case law

Border Brokerage Co. v. United States

64 Cust. Ct. 331 · United States Customs Court · Apr 16, 1970

Thus, in Smith v. … But, in this connection, see Brown & Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 415 , T.D. 35977 (1915).

United States v. National Aniline & Chemical Co.

3 Ct. Cust. 10 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1912

In United States v. Hempstead & Son (153 Fed. … White & Co. v. United States (154 Fed.

Application of Philip S. Fay and Fred J. Fox

347 F.2d 597 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1965

Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 112 , 22 L.Ed. 566 (1874). … D.C. 97 ] 104 F.(2d) 230 ; SherwinWilliams Co. et al. v. Marzall, 1951 C.D. 48, 647 O.G. 328 [ 88 U.S.App.D.C. 374 ] 190 F.(2d) 606 , 89 USPQ 208 ; Mandel Bros., Inc. v. Wallace, 1948 C.

McKechnie v. United States

648 F.2d 1300 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 25, 1981

The Board rejected the appeal as untimely. John C. McKechnie v. Department of the Navy, MSPB, Atlanta Field Office, Decision No. AT752B90246 (Aug. 3, 1979). … In McCormack v. United States, 204 Ct.

Liles Construction Co. v. United States

455 F.2d 527 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1972

Co. v. United States, 176 Ct. … Co. v. United States, 187 Ct.

Haselrig v. United States

53 Fed. Cl. 111 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2002

Porter v. … v.

Quinn v. Commissioner

62 T.C. 223 · United States Tax Court · May 15, 1974

We think they realized taxable income under either James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961), as a misappropriation of Beverly’s funds, or North American Oil v. … United States v. Maryland Savings-Share Ins. Corp., 400 U.S. 4, 6 (1970); Brushaber v. Union Pac.

Cooper v. United States

203 Ct. Cl. 300 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 19, 1973

There is a strong presumption that the board and the Secretary faithfully discharged their duties and the burden is upon plaintiff to prove otherwise. Callan v. United States, 196 Ct. … Cl. 392 , 450 F. 2d 1121 *305 (1971); Biddle v. United States, 186 Ct. Cl. 87 (1968). Plaintiff sought to meet that burden by complaints of irregularities in the actions of the board.

James A. Beckham v. The United States

392 F.2d 619 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 19, 1968

Needless to say, this is not the law; the Navy Board, like other administrative bodies, is bound by its own regulations. See, Hamlin v. … In Grubin v.

Cook v. United States

123 Fed. Cl. 277 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 2015

But see Honig v. … Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Nevertheless, the Court of Federal Claims and other Article I courts traditionally have applied the “case or controversy” justiciability doctrines. See id.; Anderson v.

Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. United States

458 F.2d 994 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1972

This course would in my opinion encroach upon the Board’s functions as trier of the facts and judge of the credibility of witnesses (Williamsburg Drapery Co. v. United States, 177 Ct. … Fox Valley Engineering, Inc. v. United States, 151 Ct. Cl. 228, 238-40 (1960); Centre Mfg. Co. v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 115, 126-28 , 392 F. 2d 229, 230-37 (1968).

Pruitt v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 83 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 14, 1992

The Board never referred to the veteran’s testimony in its analysis of the evidence. See Cartright v. … O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 365 (1991).

07-35 259

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2015

Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). … See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19 (2015); Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993).

United States v. Bosch Magneto Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 569 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

The case of United States v. … We have in mind also, and bave given consideration to, the applicability of American Exfress Co. v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 312 .

Stacey M Logan v. Department of Homeland Security

2025 MSPB 4 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Mar 14, 2025

Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983); Moulton v. Office of Personnel Management, 2023 MSPB 26, ¶ 17. … Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017).

Tri-Wall Containers, Inc. v. United States

408 F.2d 748 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 14, 1969

Jungersen v. Baden, 69 F. Supp. *331 922, 928 , 72 USPQ 426, 431 (D.C. S.D. … Connecticut Valley Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 172 Ct. Cl. 468 , 474, 348 F. 2d 949 , 953, 146 USPQ 404, 407 (1965); Dix-Seal Corp. v. Nero Haven Trap Rock Co., 236 F.

Weiner v. United States

148 Ct. Cl. 445 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1960

In July 1955 this court decided in Updike v. United States, 132 C. … On July 12, 1955, the Court of Claims decided Updike v. United States, 132 C.

08-08 978

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Apr 17, 2012

Brown, 8 Vet. App. 359, 361 (1995), citing Hauck v. Brown, 6 Vet. … Tablazon v. Brown, 8 Vet.

United States v. Kawahara

15 Ct. Cust. 231 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1927

Among the many relevant authorities we cite a few: United States v. Cerecedo, etc., 209 U. S. 337 ; Komada v. United States, 215 U. S. 392 ; Latimer v. United States, 223 U. S. 501 ; United States v. Post & Co., 3 Ct. … Appls. 260 ; United States v. Borgfeldt & Co. 7 Id. 367 ; United States v. Basket Importing Co., 13 Id. 98. The judgment of the United States Customs Court is affirmed.

Group III Mgt., Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Mar 2, 2026

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). … Thus, the Board will grant summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v.