Case law

Sandnes' Sons, Inc. v. United States

462 F.2d 1388 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1972

United States v. Miller, 111 F. Supp. 368 (E.D. Mich. 1953); Marie & Alex Manoogian Fund v. United States, 212 F.2d 369 (6th Cir. 1954) ; United States v. Hopkins, 95 F. Supp. 14 (N.D. Ohio 1950); United States v. … The Board’s Regulations, 32 C.F.R. § 1456.1 *114 and if.

United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 33 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1918

action; and further, that, under the holding of this court in Illfelder v. … United States v. Chattanooga Brewing Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 375 ; T. D. 32965); United States v. Danker & Marston ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 462 ; T. D. 32208); Benjamin Iron & Steel Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust.

Garod Radio Corporation v. The United States

307 F.2d 945 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 3, 1962

Reinking Lumber Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 283 F.2d 527 , and Armstrong et al. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 287 F.2d 577 . … Bateson Company, Inc. v.

John E. Burke v. Department of Veterans Affairs

2014 MSPB 48 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jun 23, 2014

See Mullins v. … See Bables v.

Landers

29 I. & N. Dec. 240 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Sep 17, 2025

See Cooper v. … a)(2)(v).

Chanie Robinson v. Office of Personnel Management

Merit Systems Protection Board · Jul 12, 2024

Mendoza v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). … See, e.g., Brown v. U.S.

Riester v. Kendall

159 F.2d 732 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 10, 1947

We are unable to hold that the views thus expressed by the board are manifestly wrong. … Travis v. Baker et al., 30 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1271, 137 F. (2d) 109, 58 USPQ 558 . See also Patterson et al. v. Clements et al., 30 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1262, 136 F. (2d) 1002, 58 USPQ 539 .

Holt v. United States

140 F. Supp. 268 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 3, 1956

be presented to the Retiring Board. … Plaintiff claims that on the basis of the decisions in the cases of Hamrick v. United States, 120 C. Cls. 17 , and Ramsey v. United States, 123 C.

Foote Mineral Co. v. United States

654 F.2d 81 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 1, 1981

The board has in a recent case held that brines containing sodium are not leaseable where the sodium deposits are not commercially valuable. United States v. Bardsley, 45 IBLA 367 (1980). … Ass’n v. United States, 225 Ct. Cl. 133 , 634 F.2d 526 (1980) (Medicare); Bur v. United States, 224 Ct. Cl. 52 , 621 F.2d 415 (1980) (civilian pay); Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct.

07-40 325

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 31, 2014

Reg. 45,711 (1990); Carpenter v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 240, 245 (1995); Monroe v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 513, 514- 15 (1993)). … Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet.

Tanik Construction Company, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · May 26, 2026

Mills, Inc. v. United States, 957 F.3d 1275, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Reynolds v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). … Coastal Corp. v. United States, 713 F.2d 728, 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Winder Aircraft Co. of Fla. v. United States, 412 F.2d 1270 (Ct. Cl. 1969); Evans Reamer & Mach., 386 F.2d 878 n.8; Bolinders Co. v.

Duhon v. United States

461 F.2d 1278 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 16, 1972

board. 141 Ct. … The correction boards were created to remedy wrongs, not to confound them. Id. at 527 , 172 F. Supp. at 448 . In Betts v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 530 , 172 F.

Al Barih for General Contracting Ltd.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Mar 23, 2015

W91GDW-07-D-2012 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Elias V. Lorenzana, Jr., Esq. … The Board stated: Many contractors are represented pro se before this Board. They routinely respond to discovery requests and file briefing materials.

Colonial Metals Co. v. United States

495 F.2d 1355 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 17, 1974

The Board disallowed both items of damages. … There is no need, therefore, to consider whether the findings relevant to the claim of breach are entitled to finality as relevantly made in the decision of a dispute properly before the Board (United States v.

A-A

22 I. & N. Dec. 140 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1998

V. … See Baires v.

Bromley Contracting Co. v. United States

34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,415 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 8, 1987

In S.O.G. v. … Stipulations on questions of law most certainly do not bind a Board of Contract Appeals or any other judicial panel. Swift & Co. v.

Richard C. Loshbough v. Kenneth C. Allen

373 F.2d 747 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1967

Loshbough v. Allen, supra. … As we stated in Vandenberg v.

General Electric Co.

215 Ct. Cl. 928 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 11, 1977

He also represented the United States in a separate patent action, Gould v. United States, Ct. Cl. … The attorney involved in Kesselhaut v. United States, 214 Ct.

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.

Spice Islands, Inc. v. Frank Tea & Spice Co.

505 F.2d 1293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1974

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Conway, 419 F.2d 1332 , 57 C.C.P.A. 865 (1970). … Spice Islands Co. v. Spice Land Products, Inc., 165 F.Supp. 92 (E.D.N.Y.1958), aff’d, 262 F.2d 356 (2d Cir. 1959). . In its opinion, the board reproduced Reg. No. 654,201, issued November 5, 1957, which is shown below: