Case law

10-48 022

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2014

App. at 18-19; see also Kellar v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 157, 162 (1994), Waddell v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 454, 457 (1993), and Ferraro v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. … See McTighe v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 29, 30 (1994). Additionally, there is no evidence that incapacity ever prevented the Veteran from filing a pension claim, as required by the third element.

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.

Allen v. Commissioner

66 T.C. 340 · United States Tax Court · May 24, 1976

Jones v. United States, supra; Kinsey v. Commissioner, All F.2d 1058 (2d Cir. 1973); Hudspeth v. United States, 471 F.2d 275 (8th Cir. 1972). Cf. Mark G. Anton, 34 T.C. 842 (1960), affd. sub nom. Smith’s Estate v. … Petitioners point to language in Hudspeth v. United States, supra, and Kinsey v.

Ricky A. LeVa v. Department of Homeland Security

Merit Systems Protection Board · Oct 17, 2014

Brown v. Department of Defense, 2014 MSPB 74, ¶ 13. … See Munoz v. Department of Homeland Security, 121 M.S.P.R. 483, ¶ 15 (2014) (loss of a required security clearance); Brown v.

Gregory Einboden v. Department of the Navy

2015 MSPB 26 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Feb 27, 2015

The Board has recognized that something more than a mere possibility is required to meet the efficiency of the service standard. In Lara v. … Similarly, the Board in In re Tinker AFSC/DP v.

American Woolen Co. v. United States

18 F. Supp. 783 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1937

By agreement of parties two cases, Nos. 42459 and 42904, of the American Woolen Company v. United States, have been submitted to the court under one finding of facts and one argument. … See quotation from case of Ohio Steel Foundry Co. v. United States, 38 F.(2d) 144 , 69 Ct.Cl. 158 , set out later on in this opinion.

R. Neumann & Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc., Seton Leather Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc.

326 F.2d 786 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964

Singer Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Birginal-Bigsby Corp., 319 F.2d 273 , 50 CCPA 1380. We think that the reasoning applied by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in two more recently decided cases is apposite here. … Gallun & Sons Corp. v. Aristocrat Leather.

John E. Burke v. Department of Veterans Affairs

2014 MSPB 48 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jun 23, 2014

See Mullins v. … See Bables v.

Jimenez v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 27, 2026

Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Moreover, the Court presumes that a board’s actions are valid and performed “according to the regulations and considered all of [plaintiff’s] records.” Melendez Camilo v. … See TServe Alliance, Inc. v. United States, 122 F.4th 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Keene Corp. v.

A-S

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

See Kokkinis v. … See also INS v.

Jones v. Commissioner

34 B.T.A. 280 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 7, 1936

Helvering v. Butterworth, 290 U. S. 365 . … He explains that prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hel-ver ing v.

Ilco Corp. v. Ideal Security Hardware Corp.

527 F.2d 1221 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1976

We agree with the following statement of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. … Elder Manufacturing Co. v. International Shoe Co., 194 F.2d 114 , 39 CCPA 817 (1952). In the board’s view, the record supported a date of first use by appellee in “the latter part of 1966, or early 1967.”

Arthur Liebscher v. Wilson P. Boothroyd

258 F.2d 948 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 1, 1958

Sweetland v. Don Cole, 19 C.C.P.A.(Patents) 751, 53 F.2d 709 , 11 U.S.Pat.Q. 174; William E. Moore v. Albert E. Greene, 18 C.C.P.A. … Furthermore, we find nothing in Bocciarelli v. Huffman, supra, cited by the board, which is inconsistent with the position wTe have taken.

Thrive Natural Care Inc. v. Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Aug 15, 2023

Cir. 1987) (subsequent history omitted).7 At this stage, the Board does not consider the merits of Respondent’s claims. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Libertyville Saddle Shop Inc. v. E. … Ranch LLC v.

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.

05-38 949

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jun 6, 2011

Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 92-93 (1993); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494-95 (1992). … See Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008); Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88, 95 (1996); Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337 (1996); see also Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet.

Ziade v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 47 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

Lloyd Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 280 , T. D. 38217; United States v. Bloomingdale, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 149 , T. D. 38400; United States v. Sabin, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 521 , T. D. 40731. … (Inc.) v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 17 , T. D. 40861; Sandoz Chemical Works v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 466 , T. D. 41365; Metz & Co. (Inc.) v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 412 , T.

Application of George J. Handel, Jr

312 F.2d 943 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1963

Parker & Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Company, 123 U.S. 87 , 8 S.Ct. 38 , 31 L.Ed. 100 ; 41 OG 811; 1887 CD 584. … The cases relied on by the board, United States Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation, 315 U.S. 668 , 62 S.Ct. 839 , 86 L.Ed. 1105 , and Parker and Whipple Company v.

National Movers Co. Inc. v. The United States

386 F.2d 999 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 9, 1967

Thus, the factual findings of the Board are final and conclusive, unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious and unsupported by the evidence. Wunderlich Act, 41 U.S.C. § 321 ; United States v. … (Board Decision p. 7, para. 2.) This fact is significant in light of plaintiff’s burden in a breach of contract case to demonstrate its willingness and ability to perform. See, United States v. Penn Foundry & Mfg.

Sandra K. Miller v. Office of Personnel Management

2015 MSPB 63 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Dec 16, 2015

Maddox v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1985). … v.