Case law

Wing Yee Chong & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 329 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1922

D. 14047, affirmed Kwong Ching Chong v. United States ( 119 Fed. 383 ); protest of Tuck, High & Co., T. D. 14411; protest Chee Ho Tong, T. D. 24675; protest Joe Kee, T. D. 25218; G. A. 1030; protest Choy Chong Wo, T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Hedenskoog v. Backus

48 F.2d 408 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

In Smith v. Brooks, 24 App. D. C. 75, 1904 C. … Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D.

S-S

21 I. & N. Dec. 121 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1995

, COLE, ROSENBERG, MATHON, and GUENDELSBERGER, Board Members HURWITZ, Board Member: In a decision dated May 23, 1995, the director, Newark Asylum Office, denied the stowaway applicant’s requests for asylum and withholding … See INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984); see also INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). IV.

13-29 227

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jun 4, 2015

See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, on remand, the examiner is request to supplement his opinion. … Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

Marshall Field & Co. v. United States

45 C.C.P.A. 72 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1958

D. 30048) where the Board of General Appraisers had held pincushions of cotton and sawdust which were “crude and highly colored imitations of apples, peaches, pears, and like fruit” were not artificial fruit because they … D. 43820; United States v. H. A. Caesar & Co., 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 106, T. D. 44067; California Fruit Wrapping Mills (Inc.) v. United States, 19 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 381, 385; Hummel Chemical Co. v.

Rieck v. Commissioner

35 B.T.A. 1178 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 28, 1937

It has been held that the question of what constitutes a “petition” is one for the Board to determine. Continental Petroleum Co. v. United States, (Dist. Ct., W. D. … Bonwit Teller & Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 258 , 51 S. Ct. 395 , 75 L. Ed. 1018 . Reviewed by the Board.

Odiorne v. Principi

3 Vet. App. 456 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 13, 1992

Since these claims were not addressed by either the rating board or the BVA, they are remanded for adjudication. See Douglas v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 435, 439 (1992), citing EF v. … See Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 164, 169-70 (1991); Martin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 411, 413 (1991). Here neither the rating board nor the BVA addressed appellant’s pain in its evaluations. III.

09-12 210

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 31, 2014

Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 57. Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. … Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.

Old Town Corp. v. Commissioner

37 T.C. 845 · United States Tax Court · Feb 1, 1962

Lilly v. Commissioner, 343 U.S. 90 (1952). … Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467, 472 (1943).

Andrews v. United States

163 Ct. Cl. 126 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 15, 1963

Frith v. United States, 156 Ct. Cl. 188 (1962). … Mackey v. United States, 135 Ct. Cl. 411, 415 , 142 F. Supp. 922, 924 (1956).

Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.

534 F.2d 915 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1976

, Wincharger Corp. v. … See the board’s opinion in Martin v. Crown Zellerbach, supra, 153 USPQ 141 , 145 (TTAB 1967). The issue of whether a portion of a mark is dominant turns on the facts of each case.

N G v. United States

94 Fed. Cl. 375 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 20, 2010

Plaintiff must overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to the actions of the correction board. See Richey v. … Defendant cites Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir. 1986); Stewart v. United States, 197 Ct.Cl. 472, 484 (1972); Wyatt v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 314, 319 (1991); and Krzeminski v.

A-F

8 I. & N. Dec. 429 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1959

In Ebru,vaxdim v. … (Emphasis by the Board.)

Schumacher v. United States

55 F.2d 1007 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 8, 1932

The stockholders approved the plan of reorganization and confirmed and ratified the action of the board of directors as set out in the letter of the secretary of the company. … A. 1; Mount v. Commissioner, 10 B. T. A. 1156; Garey v. Commissioner, 16 B. T. A. 274; Binger v. Commissioner, 22 B. T. A. 111; Noel v. Parrott (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 669 .

Christopher L. Elder v. Department of the Air Force

2016 MSPB 41 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Nov 22, 2016

Chavez v. … Runstrom v.

In Re South African Apartheid Litigation

238 F. Supp. 2d 1379 · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · Dec 16, 2002

238 F.Supp.2d 1379 (2002) In re SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID LITIGATION Frank Brown, et al. v. Amdahl Corp., et al., D. New Jersey, C.A. No. 2:02-3893. Lungisile Ntzebesa, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., S.D. … Nyameka Goniwe, etc. v. IBM Corp., et al., S.D. New York, C.A. No. 1:02-5297. No. 1499. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. December 16, 2002. *1380 Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, MOREY L.

Wisconsin Cheese Group, LLC v. Comercializadora de Lácteos y Derivados, S.A. de C.V.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Mar 30, 2016

Consolidation is discretionary with the Board, and may be ordered upon motion granted by the Board, or upon stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon the Board’s own initiative. World Hockey Ass’n v. … Johnson & Johnson v. Stryker, 109 USPQ2d at 1078-79 (citing Drive Trademark Holdings LP v. Inofin, 83 USPQ2d 1433, 1435 (TTAB 2007)); Giant Food, Inc. v.

United States v. Hohner

4 Ct. Cust. 122 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1913

In United States v. … D. 31577); United States v. Braun Chemical Co. (ib., 57; T. D. 31596); Spielman v. United States (ib., 61; T. D. 31626); Illfelder & Co. v. United States (ib., 299; T. D. 32040); United States v. Stirn ( 3 Ct. Cust.

UVeritech, Inc. dba Fraud Fighter v. Amax Lighting, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 29, 2015

See Turdin v. … The Board stated in Lutz Superdyne, Inc. v.

Colbert Allen Rittgers v. Department of the Army

2015 MSPB 59 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Nov 4, 2015

See Tarpley v. U.S. … See, e.g., Brady v.