Case law

Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher (Inc.) v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 498 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 15, 1926

In the case of Fish v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 307 , this court said: . … In Linen Thread Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 301 , T.

Foster Wheeler Corp. v. United States

513 F.2d 588 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 19, 1975

Co. v. United States, 149 Ct. Cl. 514, 518 (1960). To the extent that the Board’s decision was one of law, this court is, of course, free to arrive at its own conclusions. Tombigbee Constructors v. … V Assumption of the Bish of Impossibility The Board found 20 that FWC generally assumed “contractual responsibility and risk” of impossibility.

United States v. Pew Fisheries Co.

15 Ct. Cust. 403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1928

Attention was called to the case of United States v. Brown & Co., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 47 , T. … It must be assumed the Congress was fully cognizant of the decision of this court in United States v. Brown, supra.

Precision Piping, Inc. v. United States

29 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,292 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 5, 1982

Dayley v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 305, 309 (1965). In B. D. Click Co. v. United States, 225 Ct. … This argument is not open to the petitioner because it failed to raise the point before the Board. Conrac Corp. v. United States, 214 Ct. Cl. 561, 573 , 558 F.2d 994, 1000 (1977); William F. Klingensmith, Inc. v.

Jennie-O Foods, Inc. v. United States

580 F.2d 400 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 14, 1978

In Koppers Co. v. United States, 186 Ct. … In Priebe & Sons, Inc. v.

Schmidt v. United States

89 Fed. Cl. 111 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 16, 2009

The CPEB or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) is known as the informal evaluation board and the RPEB is known as the formal evaluation board. See SECNAVINST 1850.4B ¶¶ 701-703. The Federal Circuit in Gant v. … Martinez v.

Darryl D. Bradford v. R. James Nicholson

20 Vet. App. 200 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 20, 2006

In Patton v. … The Board must also address all issues that are reasonably raised by the appellant. EF v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 324, 326 (1991); see also Jones v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 396, 399 (1992). Once Mr.

Franchi Construction Co. v. United States

609 F.2d 984 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 14, 1979

WPC Enterprises Inc. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 1, 6-7 , 323 F.2d 874, 876-77 (1963). … Merando, Inc. v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 23, 26-27 , 475 F.2d 601, 602-03 (1973); Bishop Eng’r Co. v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 411, 415 (1967); Blount Bros. Constr. Co. v. United States, 171 Ct.

Parker v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 522 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 18, 1991

Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 401, 404 (1991) (quoting Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 56, 58, 56-57 (1990)). … Moore , at 405; Witherspoon v.

Corey Stoglin v. Department of Agriculture

Merit Systems Protection Board · Jan 31, 2023

See Irwin, 498 U.S. at 96 n.3; Brown v. U.S. Postal Service, 110 M.S.P.R. 381, ¶ 14 (2009). … See Burgess v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 758 F.2d 641, 643-44 (Fed.

Rowe v. Holtz

55 F.2d 465 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1932

This practice, however, ■was overruled by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in Peters v. Hopkins and Demend, 1910 C. D., 278 * * *. The board then quotes from Peters v. Hopkins, 34 App. D. … C. 141, and discusses and quotes from Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 11 App. D. C. 264; De Forest v. Meissner et al., 298 Fed. 1006 ; and Armstrong et al. v.

Silvestri v. Grant

496 F.2d 593 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1974

Heard v. Burton, 333 F.2d 239 , 51 CCPA 1502 (1964); and Langer v. Kaufmann, 59 CCPA 1261, 465 F.2d 915 (1972). … Although we would find it useful to have the board’s views on this point, we do not feel this is one of those cases in which a remand to the board is necessary. Cf. Myers v.

Copar Pumice Company, Inc. v. United States

112 Fed. Cl. 515 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 18, 2013

The parties indicated at oral argument that an administrative appeal of this determination is now pending in the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”). I. The present lawsuit. … at 824; Rex Trailer Co. v.

DCX-CHOL Enterprises, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Mar 15, 2017

SPM4A4-11-V-4143 ) SPM4A6-11-C-008 l ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. … Opinion and Decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60782, Appeal ofDCX-CHOL Enterprises, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.

NIPPON HODO COMPANY v. United States

160 F. Supp. 501 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 2, 1958

of Contract Appeals and negotiate the amount to which the plaintiff was fairly entitled under the board’s decision on Claim V. … Packard & Co. v.

Proscelle v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 629 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 24, 1992

Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140, 145-46 (1991); Jones (McArthur) v. … Once the record has been adequately developed, the Board, after considering all the evidence of record, should adjudicate or readjudicate each of the veteran’s claims. See Carl Fletcher v.

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).

Sexton v. United States

228 Ct. Cl. 706 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1981

The failure was that the board had selected an insufficient percentage of officers from the "secondary zone” of promotion (officers junior in rank to those in the "primary zone”), see Doyle v. United States, 220 Ct. … The plaintiff sought review of these passovers from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, but that board denied relief.

R.E.D.M. Corporation v. The United States

428 F.2d 1304 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1970

In Ithaca Gun Co. v. … Co. v.

Monster Energy Company v. Herman Jones

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 23, 2024

In exercising its inherent discretion, the Board will determine whether the proposed brief will aid the Board in “resolving doubtful issues of law,” Harjo, 1998 WL 90884, at *3 (citing Leigh v. Engle, 535 F. … Nyer v.