Case law

International Graphics, Division of Moore Business Forms, Inc. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,963 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 23, 1983

Local 2855 v. Brown, 602 F.2d at 580-81; quoting Panama Canal Co. v. Grace Line, 356 U.S. 309, 318 , 78 S.Ct. 752, 757 , 2 L.Ed.2d 788 (1958). … A-76, ¶ 7c(3) (Revised August 30, 1967); quoted in Local 2855 v. Brown, 602 F.2d at 581.

Griffin & Dickson v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,894 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 28, 1990

Contract boards of appeal must abide by this high standard. Metadure Corp. v. United States, 6 Cl.Ct. 61 (1984). … the appeal to the Board.

CHAIREZ and SAMA

26 I. & N. Dec. 796 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2016

cases for review of the Board’s decisions. … After the parties and interested amici submitted their briefs, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in Mathis v.

Jerry M Sprouse v. Department of Veterans Affairs

2024 MSPB 12 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Oct 25, 2024

rule applied to Board proceedings and that the Board’s prior decision to the contrary, Delk, 57 M.S.P.R. at 530-32, had since been overruled by the Federal Circuit in Wiley v. … Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364-69 & n.4 (1998) (declining to apply the rule to parole revocation hearings); Immigration and Naturalization Service v.

John C. Kohler Co. v. United States

498 F.2d 1360 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 19, 1974

On review, the test to be applied is whether, on the basis of the evidence before it, the action taken by the Board was a reasonable one. United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U.S. 709, 715 (1963); Koppers Co. v. … The Board found that plaintiff had performed the tests. The Uniform Commercial Code is applicable to the field of public contracts. Harry Thuresson, Inc. v. United States, 197 Ct.

Anwar Alsabah Company

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Mar 3, 2015

The Board's authority to issue an order pursuant to Board Rule l(a)(5) "presupposes jurisdiction under the CDA." … Anwar, as the party seeking to invoke the Board's jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing the Board's jurisdiction by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v.

Thomas v. Michael

166 F.2d 944 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1948

See Bogoslowsky v. Huse, 31 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1034, 1038, 142 F. (2d) 75, 78, 61 USPQ 367 . … See, Larson v. Eicher, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1497, 49 F. (2d) 1029, 1031, 9 U. S. Pat. Q. 461; Fenton R. Brydle v. Harry H. Honigbaum, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 773, 54 F. (2d) 147, 11 U. S. Pat. Q. 219; Kyrides v.

In re Rinehart

531 F.2d 1048 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1976

Board The board affirmed the rejection of claims 1 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as *1050 obvious on Pengilly 3 and Munro et al. … Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Schuyler, Com’r., Civil No. 666-71 (D.D.C., Feb. 25, 1975).

Dofflemyer v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 277 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 31, 1992

See Lehman v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 339, 341-342 (1991); Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 308, 313-314 (1991). … Hohol v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 169, 172 (1992).

Andreas Hau v. Department of Homeland Security

2016 MSPB 33 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Sep 19, 2016

The Board must have jurisdiction over an appeal to apply the doctrine of res judicata. Noble v. U.S. Postal Service, 93 M.S.P.R. 693, ¶ 7 (2003). … Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Board have declared should be avoided. See, e.g., id.; MGA, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation, 827 F.2d 729, 732 (Fed.

Andreas Hau v. Department of Homeland Security

2016 MSPB 33 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Sep 19, 2016

The Board must have jurisdiction over an appeal to apply the doctrine of res judicata. Noble v. U.S. Postal Service, 93 M.S.P.R. 693, ¶ 7 (2003). … Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Board have declared should be avoided. See, e.g., id.; MGA, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation, 827 F.2d 729, 732 (Fed.

11-25 890

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Nov 28, 2014

See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385; see also Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). … Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.

Carson v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 105 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1911

Judge Platt, in the Circuit Court, in affirming the decision of the board, said in substance that gloves exactly like those involved had been passed upon in that court in Trefousse et al. v. … In order to warrant a reversal of the board, we must be satisfied that its finding is wholly without evidence to support it or that it is clearly contrary to the weight of evidence. United States v. Riebe ( 1 Ct. Cust.

Lewisohn Importing & Trading Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 204 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1914

The Court of Customs Appeals in Wolff v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 181 ; T. D. 31217), affirming ruling of the board in G. A. 6888 (T. … United States v. Spingarn Bros. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 34002); Arthur v. Goddard ( 96 U. S., 145 ).

In Re Dreyfus

65 F.2d 472 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1933

C. 599; Kasser Egg Process Co. v. Poultry Producers of Central California (C. C. A.) 59 F. (2d) 141; Rohm et al. v. Martin Dennis Co. (D. C.) 263 F. 106 ; affirmed by the U. S. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Application of Walter S. Kaghan, William J. Schmitt and Percy M. Kay

387 F.2d 398 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1967

See Overland Motor Company v. Packard Motor Company, 274 U.S. 417 , 47 S.Ct. 672 , 71 L.Ed. 1131 (1926) ; In re Fried, 312 F.2d 930 , 50 CCPA 954; In re Hitchings, 342 F.2d 80 , 52 CCPA 1141. … Our reasoning in this case involves not only the statutes and the Rules of Practice, which have the force of law insofar as they are consistent with the statutes see 35 U.S.C. § 6 ; Land v.

United States v. Lippmann

11 Ct. Cust. 336 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1922

It was said in substance in United States v. Shallus ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 332 ; T. … See Madeira Embroidery Co. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 140 ; T. D. 37990); United States v. Park ( 77 Fed. 608 ); Balfour v. Sullivan ( 17 Fed. 231 ); T. D. 24334 (G. A. 5317); T. D. 24361; T. D. 24511 (G.

Stacy Miller v. Department of Defense

Merit Systems Protection Board · Feb 1, 2023

Brown v. U.S. Postal Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 609, ¶ 10, aff’d, 469 F. App’x 852 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Searcy, 114 M.S.P.R. 281, ¶ 12. … Brown, 115 M.S.P.R. 609, ¶ 16.

In re Boyce

32 C.C.P.A. 718 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1944

Bourdon v. Kraft, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1408,1409,113 F. (2d) 115, 46 USPQ 207 . Grane et ad. v. Carlson, 29 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 879, 881,125 F. (2d) 709, 52 USPQ 495 . In re Lincoln et al., 29 C. C. P. A. … Dailey No. 4, page 46S; Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 470 O. G. 1219 .

Henry W. Rimbach v. Willem Lambertus Wanmaker and Cornelis Bakker

362 F.2d 561 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 6, 1966

We regard the holding in Chittick v. Lyons, 26 CCPA 1382; 42 USPQ 132 , 1939 CD 768: 104 F.(2d) 818 and Morway et al. v. … Blicke v. Treves, supra.