Case law

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.

Woodford v. United States

151 F. Supp. 925 · United States Court of Claims · May 8, 1957

Holiday v. United States, 128 C. Cls. 647 ; Wales v. United States, 132 C. Cls. 765 ; Beamish v. United States, 130 C. Cls. 767 . … Cls. 270 , and Wales v.

Bromion, Incorporated v. The United States

411 F.2d 1020 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1969

In Dynamics Corporation of America v. … In Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, 351 F.2d 972 , 169 Ct. Cl. 384 (1965) the court again concluded it was not bound by a Board determination.

Tirpak v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 609 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 20, 1992

Sanchez v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 330, 333 (1992); Kehoskie v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 31, 34 (1991). … The motion to remand is DENIED, and the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED for the above reason; no view is expressed as to the opinion of the Board.

11-11 330

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jan 30, 2015

App. 1 (1999); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994). The Board notes that an assertion of CUE is a collateral attack on an otherwise final rating decision by a VA regional office. Smith v. … See Luallen v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 92, 96 (1995).

Devoy v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 444 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1912

D. 13243); In re Schorestene Frères v. United States (suit 2155, Dec. 12, 1900, Circuit Court, Southern District of New York); In re Rumpp & Sons (T. D. 15724); In re Schorestene Frères (T.D. 23349). … D. 30085) and we find nothing in it to induce us to recede from the views which we expressed in the case of Tilge & Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 97 ; T.

Wood v. United States

61 Ct. Cl. 192 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 16, 1925

board that in order to obtain such license and before the same would be issued it was necessary to obtain approval therefor from the United States Shipping Board; that upon application to the United States Shipping Board … The case of United States v. Holland-America Lijn, 254 U.S. 148 , is on all fours with this case and governs it. In that case the court quoted from 155 U.

Champion Products, Inc. v. Ohio State University

614 F.2d 763 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1980

Those in which appeal from board decisions to strike some pleadings has been permitted are readily distinguishable. In Toro Co. v. … In Knickerbocker Toy Co. v. Faultless Starch Co., supra, the stricken pleadings recited copyright infringement, an issue not within the jurisdiction of the board.

Monroe Garment Co. v. United States

488 F.2d 989 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 19, 1973

Harden Corp v. United States 11 and Len Co. & Associates v. … Board findings Nos. 17 and 18, 71-2 BCA at 42,386-87. NorthBridge Electronics, Inc. v. United States, 195 Ct. Cl. 453, 460-62 , 444 F. 2d 1124, 1128-29 (1971) ; Koppers Co. v. United States, 186 Ct.

FARIAS

21 I. & N. Dec. 269 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1996

See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S 421, 431 (1987); INS v. … See Ziffrin v.

Delta Equipment & Construction Co. v. United States

104 F. Supp. 549 · United States Court of Claims · May 6, 1952

In reaching this conclusion we rely in part upon Weissbaum v. United States, 72 C. … Board of Commissioners, etc. v. Franklin, No. 39,793 (La.), appeal dismissed, 342 U. S. 844 (per curiam), rehearing den., 342 U. S. 889 .

Ward v. United States

133 Fed. Cl. 418 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2017

(alteration in original) (quoting Clayton v. United States, 225 Ct. Cl. 593, 595 (1980))). The Court does not serve as a “super correction board.” Stine v. United States, 92 Fed. … In Van Cleave v.

Davis R. Dewey, II v. Elliott J. Lawton

347 F.2d 629 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1965

Stresau v. Ipsen, 77 F.2d 937 , 22 CCPA 1352. … See, e. g., Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App.D.C. 86 (1898), Stresau v. Ipsen, supra.

14-34 721

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Apr 30, 2018

Brady v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 203, 206 (1993). In this regard, the Board must note the fact that the Veteran is already at 100% and has been for many years due to his service-connected problems. … See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994).

Bishop Engineering Co. v. United States

180 Ct. Cl. 411 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 9, 1967

On questions of law, a decision of the head of an agency or a board of contract appeals is not final against a plaintiff nor binding on the court. Kraus v. United States, 177 Ct. … Randolph Engineering Company v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 872 , 367 F. 2d 425 (1966); Southern Construction Company v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 1339 , 364 F. 2d 439 (1966); Jefferson Constmiction Company v.

Roubin & Janeiro, Inc.

652 F.2d 70 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 13, 1981

See Warwick Construction, Inc. v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 567 (1980). A general description of each claim follows: A. GSBA No. 4991 (Foamglass Insulation). … It states that the claims before the Board are all "small” and are being handled under the accelerated procedures of Board Rule 12 for claims involving $25,000 or less.

190816-26848

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 31, 2020

. § 3.344(a); Kitchens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 320 (1995). In Brown v. … Brown, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) determined that the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a) only apply where the rating to be reduced has continued for five years or more. Brown v.

Beek v. Commissioner

80 T.C. 1024 · United States Tax Court · May 19, 1983

Under such circumstances, the Board held that a portion of each installment payment was deductible by the purchaser as interest paid on indebtedness. … Brown and Agnes K. Brown, docket No. 10040-80; Merton E. Burkholder and Dorothy J. Burkholder, docket No. 10041-80; Ernest L. Burland, Jr., and Doris H. Burland, docket No. 10042-80; John P. Chard and Margaret L.

Michael R. Jones v. Department of Agriculture

Merit Systems Protection Board · Sep 29, 2014

Generally, the Board lacks the authority to review an employee’s decision to resign or retire, because these actions are presumed to be voluntary. Brown v. U.S. … See Loredo v.

HARKINS v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 14, 2025

, reenlistment boards, counsel, pre-separation medical treatment, and separation pay). … Cl. at 255 (quoting Brown v. United States, 126 Fed.