Case law

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.

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.

Paskert v. United States

20 Cl. Ct. 65 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 28, 1990

Braddock v. United States, 9 Cl.Ct. 463, 472 (1986). In Sanders v. … a) (1988); Murphy v.

Designatronics, Inc.

25 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,404 · United States Court of Claims · May 19, 1978

V 1975), to claim the SCCA exemption in de novo proceedings before this court without regard to any waiver before the Board. … Co. v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 460 , 527 F. 2d 280 (1978); Gibraltar Mfg. Co. v. United States, 212 Ct.Cl. 226 , 546 F. 2d 386 (1976); Lykes Bros. S.S. Co. v. United States, 198 Ct.

Peterson-Sharpe Engineering Corp. v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,873 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 4, 1984

There is no rule that a board decision be rendered by the individual who presided at the hearing. Tri-Cor, Inc. v. United States, 198 Ct.Cl. 187 , 458 F.2d 112, 116 (1972); Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. … See Tri-Cor, Inc. v. United States, 458 F.2d at 117 ; Sternberger v. United States, 401 F.2d at 1017 . In this case, the Board’s findings demonstrate that it reviewed the evidence compiled by the hearing officer.

Callan v. United States

450 F.2d 1121 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 12, 1971

Cosgriff v. United States, 181 Ct. Cl. 730, 737 , 387 F. 2d 390, 394 (1967); Towell v. United States, 150 Ct. Cl. 422, 436 (1960). Under this interpretation the Board was correct in not applying AFM 160-1. … Farrar v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 1008 , 358 F. 2d 965 (1965); Hutter v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 517 , 345 F. 2d 828 (1965); Weiner v. United States, 148 Ct. Cl. 445 (1960).

United States v. Borgfeldt

12 Ct. Cust. 324 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

—Scaramelli v. United States ( 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 134 ; T. D. 40056). … The object of the law requiring such a statement is well expressed by Barber, Judge, in Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v.

Smith v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 267 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 24, 1991

Co. v. … See Young v.

Stephanie D. Thomas v. Department of the Navy

2016 MSPB 34 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Sep 27, 2016

Her appeal of that action is pending in the Board’s Washington Regional Office. Thomas v. Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket No. … that previous Board decisions characterizing such suspensions as constructive were in error); see also Pittman v.

Estate of Bailey v. Commissioner

79 T.C. 441 · United States Tax Court · Sep 9, 1982

See also Brown v. Elmendorf, 87 Tex. 56 , 26 S.W. 1043, 1044 (1894); Long v. Moore, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 363 , 48 S.W. 43, 46 (1898); cf. Nowlin v. Clary, 178 S.W. 571, 573 (Tex. Civ. App. 1915). … Slay v. Burnett Trust, 187 S.W.2d at 389 ; Langford v. Shamburger, supra at 442 . Brown v.

Salutare S.A. de C.V. v. Remedy Drinks Pty Ltd

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Dec 16, 2021

Notwithstanding, the Board has no jurisdiction over non-party depositions or adverse witness depositions taken by subpoena. See Ate My Heart, Inc. v. … See Jain v.

Stanadyne, Inc. v. Lins

490 F.2d 1396 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 14, 1974

The board observed that the resolution of that question is “purely a subjective one.” On the subjective resolution, we disagree with the board. … Aside from the point above mentioned that no registration shows a double-drop mark, we reiterate, as we most recently did in AMF Inc. v.

Applegarth v. Wilson

156 F.2d 373 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 9, 1946

Chandler v. Mock, 32 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1183, 150 F. (2d) 563, 66 USPQ 209 ; Lustig v. Legat, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 991, 154 F. (2d) 680, 69 USPQ 345 . … Beall v. Ormsby, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 959, 154 F. (2d) 663, 69 USPQ 314 .

07-02 671

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jun 6, 2011

In Collette v. Brown, 82 F.3d 389 (Fed. … Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Goodenough v. United States

19 F. Supp. 254 · United States Court of Claims · May 3, 1937

In the case last cited it was said: “In Ohio Steel Foundry Co. v. United States, 38 F.(2d) 144 , 69 Ct.Cl. 158 , and Arthur Curtiss James v. United States, 38. … . -, and Wood v. United States (Ct.Cl.) 17 F.Supp. 521 . In the early case of Toland v.

Robert L. Guyler Co. ex rel. McCarty Corp. v. United States

593 F.2d 406 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 21, 1979

The Board found that Mr. … "This court is not bound by the Board’s interpretation of the contract provisions, since such is a matter of law which the court is free to answer independently of the Board’s decision.” Merando, Inc. v.

Murray Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management

2022 MSPB 19 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jul 8, 2022

See Panter v. … OPM, 3 The Board may rely on unpublished decisions of the Federal Circuit if it finds the court’s reasoning persuasive, as we do here. See Mauldin v. U.S.

Coley v. Commissioner

45 B.T.A. 405 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 22, 1941

COLEY, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Coley v. Commissioner Docket No. 99322. … Cohen Trust v. Commissioner, 121 Fed.(2d) 689 , followed. John E. McClure, Esq., for the petitioner. L. W. Creason, Esq., for the respondent.

In Re Tri-State Water Rights Litigation

481 F. Supp. 2d 1351 · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · Mar 20, 2007

Plaintiff State of Alabama (Alabama) and intervenor plaintiffs in the Alabama action — The Alabama Power Co. and the Waterworks and Sanitary Sewer Board of the City of Montgomery, Alabama (Montgomery Board) — oppose centralization … No. 1:90—1331 Northern District of Florida State of Florida v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, et al., C.A. No. 4:06—410 Northern District of Georgia State of Georgia v.