Case law

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.

Antonellis v. United States

106 Fed. Cl. 112 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 23, 2012

Murphy, 993 F.2d at 873 ; see King v. … of the Board.

United States v. Finkelstein

15 Ct. Cust. 62 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 16, 1927

As illustrations see Fry & Friedsam v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 486 , and Tong & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 133 . … In Klein, Messner Co. v. United States, supra, the rule of the board then in force provided that petitions for remission must be filed within 60 days from the date of final appraisement.

Nitz v. Ehrenreich

537 F.2d 539 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 15, 1976

In McCabe v. Cramblet, supra, which we quoted with favor in Brailsford v. … As we said in Wetmore v.

Dehne v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 606 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 3, 1991

Mitchell v. United States, 930 F.2d 893, 896 (Fed.Cir.1991). “The fact that this court has jurisdiction to review actions of military correction boards is not disputable.” Armstrong v. … In Banks v.

Edward Bent v. Department of State

2016 MSPB 17 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Apr 1, 2016

Burgess v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 758 F.2d 641, 643‑44 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Searcy v. Department of Agriculture, 115 M.S.P.R. 260, ¶¶ 12-13 (2010). … As the Supreme Court explained in Irwin v.

Bailey-Mora Co. v. United States

53 Cust. Ct. 272 · United States Customs Court · Sep 21, 1964

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of finger jointed molding similar in all material respects, except for the finger jointing, to that 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.

Multisorb Technologies, Inc. v. Pactiv Corporation

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Dec 30, 2013

v. … More specifically, the Board’s determination of registrability does not require, in every instance, decision on every pleaded claim. See American Paging Inc. v.

Ledford v. Derwinski

3 Vet. App. 87 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 7, 1992

See, e.g., Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990). … See Gilbert; Willis v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 63, 65-66 (1990). The reasons and bases provided by the Board for denying service connection are inadequate as a matter of law.

General Petroleum Corp. v. United States

56 Cust. Ct. 249 · United States Customs Court · Mar 21, 1966

United States v. Brown, Durrell & Co., 127 Fed. 793 (T.D. 25074); Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1 Cust. Ct. 78 , C.D. 22; Wong Sang Man v. United States, 27 Cust. Ct. 248 , C.D. 1379; Carey & Skinner, Inc. v. … Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni v. United States, supra; Wong Sang Man v. United States, supra; The Lansdowne Distillery v. United States, 39 Cust. Ct. 190 , C.D. 1925.

Dominguez v. United States

53 Cust. Ct. 288 · United States Customs Court · Oct 13, 1964

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of finger jointed molding similar in all material respects to that 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 plaintiff was sustained.

The Evergreens v. Commissioner

47 B.T.A. 815 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 7, 1942

Tait v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 289 U. S. 620 . … Reviewed by the Board. Decision will be entered, wider Bule 50. Elmhurst Cemetery Co. of Joliet v. Commissioner, 300 U. S. 37 .

20-28 780

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 13, 2021

Therefore, the Board must likewise limit the scope of the appeal to this one issue. See Hamilton v. Brown, 4 Vet. … See Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532, 538 (1993).

In re Storrs

245 F.2d 474 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1957

Mark v. Greenawalt, 32 App. D. C. 253 (1908); Mowry v. Whitney, 81 U. S. 620 (1871). … Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40 (1887). Claim 38 was further rejected by the board as unpatentable over Trent.

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.

McKee v. United States

500 F.2d 525 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1974

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971); Peters v. United States, 187 Ct. Cl. 63 , 408 F. 2d 719 (1969). … 'Since this is a proceeding for review of an agency appeals board decision, and such review can be made only on the basis of the board record, United States v.

11-00 129

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 31, 2014

As to VA's duty to assist, the Board finds that all necessary development has been accomplished, and therefore appellate review may proceed without prejudice to the Veteran. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. … See Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 540, 546 (1991); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994).

The Deltec Corporation v. The United States

326 F.2d 1004 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1964

In 1954 the defendant entered into a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with Brown-Raymond-Walsh (B-R-W) to construct three military air facilities in Spain. … As the case has developed, out of the various defenses raised, we need consider only this across-the-board position.

James L. Gianladis v. Gus S. Kass

324 F.2d 322 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1963

Fausek et al. v. Vincent, 25 CCPA 770, 92 F.2d 909 , 1988 C.D. 184, 85 USPQ 520 ; Collins v. Olsen, 26 CCPA 1017, 1939 C.D. 405, 102 F.2d 828 , 41 USPQ 220 ; Keefe v. … The board relied on Searle v. Glarum et al., cited supra, in holding that the 1961 analysis is not probative since reduction to practice cannot be established nunc pro tunc.

Application of Harry Louis Yale, Francis Alexander Sowinski and Jack Bernstein

347 F.2d 995 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 19, 1965

12, 13 and 18 (In re Rhodes, supra; Lawson v. … Bruce, 222 F.2d 273 , 42 CCPA 893; Binstead v. Littmann, 242 F.2d 766 , 44 CCPA 839; 113 USPQ 279 ; Mahan v. Doumani, 333 F.2d 896 , 51 CCPA 1516).