Case law

The Jack Stone Company, Inc. v. The United States

344 F.2d 370 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1965

Kaiser Industries Corp. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 340 F.2d 322 , p. *375 329, decided Jan. 22, 1965; Pfotzer v. … Farwell Co. v. United States, 148 F.Supp. 947 , 137 Ct.Cl. 832 (1957); Henry Spen & Co. v. United States, 153 F.Supp. 407 , 139 Ct. Ct. 613 (1957); Octagon Process, Inc. v. United States, 141 Ct.Cl. 599, 604 (1958).

Golomb v. Wadsworth

592 F.2d 1184 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 8, 1979

But nothing else is necessary, for, as this court said in DeWalt, Inc. v. … Goiomb, “Checker Boards and Polyominoes,” American Mathematical Monthly 675 (Dec. 1954). . Golomb v. Wadsworth, 184 USPQ 249 (TTAB 1974) (Opposition No. 53,785, application serial No. 391,735, filed May 11, 1971). .

Salomon v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 5 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1916

Bertuch & Co. et al. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 146 ; T. … Hay, Board of United States General Appraisers.

Gilmore v. United States

228 Ct. Cl. 829 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 31, 1981

Mulholland v. United States, 165 Ct. Cl. 231, 233 (1964); Braude v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. 270, 273-74 , 585 F.2d 1049, 1051-52 (1978); Fitzgerald v. Seamans, 553 F.2d 220, 228 (D.C. Cir. 1977). … See, Fitzgerald v. Seamans, supra, 553 F.2d 220, 228 .

McGuire Shaft & Tunnel Corp. v. Local Union No. 1791, United Mine Workers of America

475 F.2d 1209 · Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 1973

Local 117 of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America v. United States, 468 F.2d 946 (Em.App.1972); United States v. … Khedivial Line, S.A.E. v.

Robin Sabio v. Department of Veterans Affairs

2017 MSPB 4 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jan 6, 2017

See Panter v. … Oncale v.

Kruger v. Resnick

197 F.2d 348 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1952

In support thereof, the board quoted from section 142, Interference Law and Practice, Rivise and Caesar. It also cited the following cases: Jobski v. Johnson, 47 App.D.C. 230 ; Fageol v. … “In Fageol v.

13-02 536

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jan 29, 2016

Baker v. West, 11 Vet. App. 163 (1998); Hayes v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 67 (1996). This duty to assist applies only to relevant SSA records. Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. … The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment.

Mike A. Saiz v. Department of the Navy

2015 MSPB 40 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jun 8, 2015

That is because the employing agency, and not the Board, has primary discretion in maintaining employee discipline and efficiency. Balouris v. U.S. … Singletary v.

Mymeta Software, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Apr 24, 2024

See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. O’Rourke, 92 USPQ2d 1042, 1043-44 (TTAB 2009). We note the Board has long allowed amendments under Fed. R. Civ. … Co. v.

Orbisphere Corp. v. United States

15 Ct. Int'l Trade 214 · United States Court of International Trade · May 14, 1991

In Hill Brown Corp. v. … National Carloading Corp. v. United States, 60 CCPA 54, 470 F.2d 1393 (1972) involved essentially the same facts, and produced the same result, as did Hill Brown.

Gerald W. Monett v. The United States

419 F.2d 434 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1969

But plaintiff maintains that his agreement must be construed in the light of three prior Board of Review decisions (United States v. Renner, CM 393739, January 10, 1957 (unpublished); United States v. … It is on this point that the three Board cases are distinguishable. United States v.

Bailey Mora Co. v. United States

61 Cust. Ct. 666 · United States Customs Court · Nov 15, 1968

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of finger jointed moldings similar in all material respects to those the subject of Best Moulding Corporation v. … United States (Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc., Party in Interest) (51 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 829), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

A-S

21 I. & N. Dec. 1106 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1998

See Kokkinis v. … See also INS v.

11-27 082

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Feb 5, 2015

See Powell v. West, 13 Vet. App. 31, 34 (1999); Hicks v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 417, 421 (1995). As mentioned above, the Board finds that a 20 percent rating is warranted for the Veteran's low back disability. … See Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337, 339 (1996). There is a three-step inquiry for determining entitlement to an extraschedular rating. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App, 111 (2008).

Furlong v. United States

153 Ct. Cl. 557 · United States Court of Claims · May 3, 1961

Cl. 275 ; Girault v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 135 ,; Prichard v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 212 ; Beamish v. United States, 130 Ct. Cl. 767 ; Holliday v. United States, 128 Ct. Cl. 647 ; Spencer v. … Holliday v. United States, supra; Wales v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 765 ; Johnson v. United States, supra.

10-28 279

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2015

See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). An April 2015 rating decision denied entitlement to service connection for tinnitus and hearing loss. … The Board is required to remand, rather than refer, this issue. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

07-26 859

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 27, 2015

See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). … Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 262 (1994); see also VA Gen. Coun.

United States v. Burley & Tyrrell Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

but on the knowledge of the board that blown glass was not chief value. … Rule 34, Board of General Appraisers; United States v. Oberle ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 527, 528 ; T. D..31545); United States v. Lun Chong & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 468, 469 ; T. D. 33041).

United States v. American Bead Co.

3 Ct. Cust. 509 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1913

The board then proceeds to review the cases upon the subject, and on the authority of United States v. Weinberg ( 139 Fed., 1006 ), which followed the case of Lorsch v. … If so, the board was in error, as we held in Cohn v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 288 ; T.