Case law

Pitcher v. Commissioner

31 B.T.A. 957 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 28, 1934

Register v. Commissioner, 69 Fed. (2d) 607; Kreipke v. Commissioner, 32 Fed. (2d) 694, affirming 7 B. T. A. 777; Burnet v. Livezey, 48 Fed. (2d) 159; Harry D. Kremer, 31 B. T. A. 566. … Such facts were present in Burnet v. Livezey, supra, and United States v. Butler, 49 Fed. (2d) 52, cases in which the compensation was Held to be exempt *961 from tax.

Brogden v. Slater

40 F.2d 988 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1930

Seymour v. Molyneux, 49 App. D. C. 216, 263 F. 468 . … Gowen v. Hendry & King (Cust. & Pat. App.) 37 F.(2d) 426 ; Lynch v. Headley et al., 52 App. I). C. 269, 285 F. 1003 . Appellant asserts, however, that this rule is not applicable here.

DSME Construction Co., Ltd.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jul 30, 2024

See Parsons Evergreene v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 968 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (source of funding does not abrogate CDA jurisdiction). … See also OSHCO-PAE-SOMC v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 614 (1989); Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr. v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 854 at 858 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Minesen Co. v. McHugh, 671 F.3d 1332, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

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.

Dominguez v. United States

55 Cust. Ct. 401 · United States Customs Court · Jul 27, 1965

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.

Bailey-Mora Co. v. United States

55 Cust. Ct. 479 · United States Customs Court · Nov 23, 1965

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of finger joined 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 plaintiffs was sustained.

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.

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.

Nnenna Lovette Nkanginieme v. Lovette Appleton

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Mar 7, 2023

See King Candy Co. v. … .”); Signal Cos. 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). .

Miller v. United States

29 Fed. Cl. 107 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 13, 1993

In Blevins v. … See also Mullen v.

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.

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.

In re Honeywell, Inc.

532 F.2d 180 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1976

Best Lock Corp. v. Schlage Lock Co.; 413 F.2d 1195 , 56 CCPA 1472 (1969); In re Deister Concentrator Co., 289 F.2d 496 , 48 CCPA 952 (1961). … However, the board did not consider the transparent disk to be “unclaimed.”

Interstate Brands Corp. v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc.

576 F.2d 926 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1978

HyTop Products Division v. … In Maremont Corp. v. Air Lift Co., 463 F.2d 1114 , 59 CCPA 1152, 174 USPQ 395 (1972), and in Baker’s Franchise Corp. v.

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.