Case law

Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc. v. United States

49 Cust. Ct. 435 · United States Customs Court · Nov 5, 1962

Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc. v. United States

40 Cust. Ct. 562 · United States Customs Court · May 20, 1958

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of United States v. *563 Mercantil

Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc. v. United States

40 Cust. Ct. 583 · United States Customs Court · May 27, 1958

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats; prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respect to the meat the subject of United States v.

Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc. v. United States

40 Cust. Ct. 591 · United States Customs Court · Jun 3, 1958

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of United States v.

Townsend v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 258 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 16, 1996

The pertinent procedural history is as follows: On October 10, 1995, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) from a May 24, 1995, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board or BVA) decision. … Shields v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 346, 351 (1995) (Court rejected appellant’s argument that she was prevented from filing a timely claim by representations of a local veterans service office); cf. Grubbs v.

Thomas Stevenson , Jr. v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 4, 2022

See 38 U.S.C. § 1151 (titled "Benefits for persons disabled by treatment or vocational rehabilitation" (emphasis added)); Gardner v. Brown, 5 F.3d 1456, 1463 (Fed. … McLain, 21 Vet.App. at 321 (citing Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (interpreting section 1110); Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (interpreting section 1131)).

Dudnick v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 397 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 12, 1996

On April 2, 1996, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) from a June 1,1995, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) decision. … See Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 241 (1991).

Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 12, 2015

Co. v. United States, (No. 07-157C), 105 Fed. Cl. 420 (2012) and California ex rel. Brown v. United States, (No. 07-184C), 105 Fed. … Brown v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. at 140). The Government has not “provide[d] any reason why that order may be reconsidered now.” Pl. Resp. at 11.

Wisner v. West

12 Vet. App. 330 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 14, 1999

See 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A) and (B), (2)(B); Chesser v. West, 11 Vet.App. 497, 499 (1998); Bazalo v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 304, 308 (1996), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Bazalo v. … See Locher v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 535, 537 (1996).

Pagaduan v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 9 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 15, 1993

PAGADUAN v. BROWN The veteran, Martin Pagaduan, had active service from December 9, 1941, to June 3,1942, the date of the veteran’s death. … BROWN The Board issued decisions denying appellant’s claim of service connection for spastic paraplegia on February 12,1981, July 8, 1982, February 13, 1985, November 19, 1986, and July 7,1988.

Silverman v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 487 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 3, 1995

Moreover, by its terms, the fee agreement appears to relate only to the claim before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and “additional reasonable compensation shall be charged for any appeal to any Court, beyond the [state superior … Lewis v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 151, 154 (1993). A fee agreement is a contract between two private parties — an appellant and the appellant’s attorney. See Nagler v.

Kelly v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 37 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 1, 1996

October 27, 1994, in response to a September 27, 1994, Notice of Docketing by the Clerk of the Court, the Secretary filed a motion for an extension of time until November 28, 1994, within which to transmit a copy of the Board … On November 25, 1994, the Secretary filed with the Court and served upon the appellant a document entitled Transmittal of Board of Veterans’ Appeals Decision. Both *38 of these pleadings were signed by Mr.

Block v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 343 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 23, 1994

See Pefianco v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 226, 229 (1993) (remand necessary where BVA decision is inadequate for Court review); Mee v. … Brown, 4 Vet.App. 220, 222 (1993) (remand required where Board did not address all evidence of record); Shoemaker v.

Harris v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 547 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 26, 1995

On remand, however, the Board, without remanding the matter to the AOJ, decided on March 25, 1994, under Leopoldo v. … Brown, 4 Vet.App. 216 (1993), issued subsequent to our decision in Tobin , that the appellant’s claim for service connection must be denied.

Hoag v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 209 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 18, 1993

7261 (a)(4) (West 1991); see Mingo v. … Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 51, 53 (1992); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 52 (1990).

Brown v. Commissioner

40 B.T.A. 934 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 24, 1939

The Board and the courts have so held in numerous cases. … A. 251, tlie Board said; The cited cases [Helvering v. Helmholz, 296 U. S. 93 , and White v. Poor, 296 U.

Cadwell v. Brown

5 Vet. App. 386 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 6, 1993

In his motion for review, appellant argues that a subsequent NOD filed on October 29, 1990, confers jurisdiction on the Court according to this Court’s opinion in Hamilton v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 528 (1993). … Suttmann v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 127 (1993).

Willis v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 66 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 21, 1991

Fletcher v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 394, 397 (1991). If the Board felt that additional development was necessary in order to adjudicate the claim, it was free to do so. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171, 174 (1991). … See Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990) (Board must provide reasons or bases for its medical conclusions). Nor may the Board substitute its own medical judgment.

Carpenter v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 248 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 2, 1997

In Green (Doris) v. Brown, the Court recently held: [A] CUE claim is not the sole way for a survivor to show the veteran’s entitlement as of the time of the veteran’s death. … Green, 10 Vet.App. 111, 118 (1997); see also Karnas v.

Zo v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 440 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 30, 1993

In considering claims to reopen previously and finally disallowed claims, the Board must conduct a two-part analysis. See Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140, 145 (1991). … . § 7261 (b) (West 1991); Shapiro v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 477, 478 (1992); Kehoskie v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 31, 34 (1991); Godwin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 419, 425 (1991); Thompson v.