Case law

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.

Visconi v. United States

98 Fed. Cl. 589 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 20, 2011

Palmer v. … Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.Cir.1997) (citation omitted); see also James v.

Jones v. United States

7 Cl. Ct. 673 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 4, 1985

It is well-established that this court has jurisdiction to review the actions of military correction boards and service secretaries, see Armstrong v. United States, 205 Ct.Cl. 754, 760-761 (1974); Hertzog v. … Similarly, in Friedman v.

Application of Mogen David Wine Corporation

328 F.2d 925 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1964

Button Corporation, 50 F.Supp. 708 (D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1943); Oneida, Ltd. v. National Silver Co., 25 N.Y.S.2d 271 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., 1940); Prince Matchabelli Inc. v. … Anhalt & Co., Inc., 40 F.Supp. 848 (D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1941), and Falcon Industries, Inc. et al. v. R. S. Herbert Co., Inc. et al., 128 F.Supp. 204 (D.C.E.D.N.Y., 1955).

Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 22, 2018

, Petitioner, v. … See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed.

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.

H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z

25 I. & N. Dec. 209 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2010

See Jian Hui Shao v. … See Qin Wen Zheng v.

Wisotsky v. United States

69 Fed. Cl. 299 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 2006

then concluded that an improperly constituted Board of Inquiry error is not jurisdictional in nature, relying on Wolfe v. … In Evensen [v.

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). .

Application of Dalton

188 F.2d 170 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1951

With respect to that phase of the controversy the examiner cited the case of United Carbon Co. et al. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228 , 63 S.Ct. 165 , 87 L.Ed. 232 . … We are not in agreement with counsel for appellants in his argument that the doctrine of the United Carbon Co. case, supra, and the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v.

Fletcher v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 394 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 16, 1991

HOLDAWAY, Associate Judge: This case concerns an appeal of a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) decision that the veteran’s industrial impairment was only “considerable” and, hence, he was not entitled to more than … See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 56 (1990); Webster v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 155, 158 (1991). Appellant was on active duty between 1948 and 1951.

Robinson v. Commissioner

102 T.C. 116 · United States Tax Court · Feb 2, 1994

Commissioner, 981 F.2d 776 (5th Cir. 1993), revg. and remanding 93 T.C. 694 (1989), and Brown v. United States, 890 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir. 1989). … We find relevant the following statement by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Brown v.

Keith L. Keller v. the United States 0

113 Fed. Cl. 779 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 6, 2013

Plaintiff’s burden is to show by “‘cogent and clearly convincing evidence’” that the decision of the board fails this standard. Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (quoting Dorl v. … Plaintiff must also overcome the presumption of regularity which attaches to the actions of the board. See, e.g., Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.

Robin Sabio v. Department of Veterans Affairs

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

See Panter v. … Oncale v.

Mohr v. Derwinski

3 Vet. App. 63 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 11, 1992

Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171, 174 (1991). … As we said in Gilbert v.

09-35 173

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jan 30, 2015

Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993). The Board will proceed with the adjudication of this appeal. … The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to give evidence about personally observable symptoms, such as joint pain. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994).

United States v. Mulhens

4 Ct. Cust. 496 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1913

Its opinion in the case at bar was rested upon the authority of Hempstead v. United States ( 168 Fed., 450 ), Woodruff v. United States ( 168 Fed., 452 ), and the case of United States v. Zinn ( 2 Ct. Cust. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Carter v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 64 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1910

In Arthur v. Morgan ( 112 U. S., 495 ) Converse v. … It is very clear that the holding of the Board of General Appraisers was'not in harmony with Hensel v. United States, nor, as we construe it, with United States v. Salambier.

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.

Veit v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 81 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1921

See Steinhardt & Bro. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., 62 ; T. D. 37940). The first article is designated by items and numbers 6332, 4219, 4220. … In Cochran & Co. v. United States ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., 62 ; T.