Case law

Gary S. Blatt v. Department of the Army

2014 MSPB 65 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Aug 19, 2014

Hesse v. Department of State, 217 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530-31 (1988)). … v.

Sargisson v. United States

12 Cl. Ct. 539 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 19, 1987

Gentry v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 654 , 656, 650 F.2d 290 (1980); see also Fleming v. … As a preliminary matter, we note that the standard this court applies in reviewing military Board decisions has been firmly established. In Heisig v.

Tow v. Commissioner

36 T.C. 861 · United States Tax Court · Aug 18, 1961

Compare Taylor v. Brown, 147 U.S. 640 * * *. But these are regarded as exceptions to the general rule. * * * In Taylor v. Brown, supra, the court included the first day of the period but excluded the last day. … Brown, 147 U.S. 640 , involved special circumstances not present in the instant'Case. In Taylor v.

191125-45834

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 31, 2020

Crowe v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 238 (1994); Contant v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 116 (2003). … See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994).

Roy E. Ferree v. Harry D. Shephard, Jr. And Pearl Thelma Griffiths, Administratrix of the Estate of Norman J. Griffiths

384 F.2d 1019 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1967

Glass v. De Roo, 239 F.2d 402 , 44 CCPA 723 (1956). In Glass v. De Roo, supra, the Board of Patent Interferences had awarded priority of invention to appellees. … Bac v. Loomis, 252 F.2d 571 , 45 CCPA 807 (1958); Den Beste v. Martin, 252 F.2d 302 , 45 CCPA 798 (1958); Wirkler v. Perkins, 245 F.2d 502 , 44 CCPA 1005 (1957); Ray v. Kronmiller, 167 F.2d 518 , 35 CCPA 1085 (1948).

Pneumatic Gun-Carriage & Power Co. v. United States

36 Ct. Cl. 71 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1901

(Child et al. v. United States, 12 Wall., 232 , and 7 C. Cls. R., 209 ; Mann v. United States, 17 Wall., 67 , and 8 C. Cls. R., 125 ; Comstock's case, 9 C. Cls. … (Insurance Association v. Wickham, 141 U. S. R., 564 , and authorities there cited; Cape Ann Granite Company v. United States, 20 C. Cls. R., 1 .)

Meyer v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 422 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1913

The petition addressed to this court for a review of the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is entitled “Petition: United States Court of Customs Appeals, Meyer & Lange, et al., petitioners, v. … Peoples Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. East Tennessee Telephone Co. ( 103 Fed., 212 ).

Application of Osplack

195 F.2d 921 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1952

Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403 , 22 S.Ct. 698 , 46 L.Ed. 968 ; In re Walch, 87 F.2d 511 , 24 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 894. … Baldwin-Southwark Corporation v. Tinius Olsen Testing Mach. Co., 3 Cir., 88 F.2d 910 .

General Electric Company, a Corporation v. The United States

440 F.2d 420 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1971

For example, in Scherr & McDermott, Inc. v. … United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U.S. 709, 717 , 83 S.Ct. 1409, 1415 , 10 L.Ed.2d 652 (1963); see Sherwin v. United States, 436 F.2d 992 , 193 Ct.Cl. 962 (Jan. 1971).

D. J. Bielzoff Products Co. v. White Horse Distillers, Ltd.

107 F.2d 583 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1939

Ely & Walker Dry Goods Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 24 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 1244, 1247, 90 F.2d 257 . … See Gilmore Oil Co., Ltd., v. Wolverine-Empire Refining Co., 21 C.C.P.A.,Patents, 943, 69 F.2d 532 .

United States Postal Service v. RPost Communication Limited

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Aug 31, 2017

Duke Univ. v. … See also Sunrider Corp. v. Raats, 83 USPQ2d 1648, 1654 (TTAB 2007) (stating that trial testimony depositions may be taken by telephone on stipulation); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Healthcare Person.

190930-36270

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Apr 30, 2021

See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). … Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Snoparsky The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided.

United States v. National Importing Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 186 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 21, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers and this court have ruled upon this question oh several occasion's, and we think the law is too well settled for prolonged discussion or extended citation. In the United States v. … —United States v. Lyon & Healy ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 438 ; T. D. 33873), Wyman v. United States (T. D. 28924), Athenia Steel & Wire Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 494 ; T. D. 31528), Worthington v.

North Wind Construction Services, LLC

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jul 2, 2024

(citing Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). ∗ Motions for reconsideration are granted “if we have made a genuine oversight that affects the outcome.” Id. … Appeals ∗ To be sure, new subject matter jurisdictional challenges may be raised at any point in litigation, see, e.g., Henderson v.

Truong Xuan Truc v. United States

22 Cont. Cas. Fed. 80,065 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 17, 1976

There was no testimony submitted to the Board nor any Board hearing in the adversary sense. The Board rendered its decision on a record composed only of documents. See Blanchard v. United States, 171 Ct. … In any event, the Board ostensibly failed to give due consideration to the proposition that contract provisions should be construed, if possible, to be lawful rather than unlawful. See Hobbs v.

RIVERA

21 I. & N. Dec. 232 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1996

See Matter of Gonzalez-Lopez, 20 I&N Dec 644, 645 (BIA 1993); see also Zapon v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 53 F.3d 283, 284 (9th Cir. 1995). … See Bothyo v. Moyer, 772 F.2d 353, 356 (7th Cir. 1985); 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.6(b), 3.8(a), 242.22 (1995); see also Gallanosa v.

MORALES

21 I. & N. Dec. 130 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1995

American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, supra, at 799. … Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) (discussing the duty of the Board to exer- cise its own independent judgment where the Attorney General has, by regu- lation, delegated this responsibility to the Board).

Murphy v. United States

69 Fed. Cl. 593 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 22, 2006

I am in agreement with the recommendation of the review board---- Mr. … United States, 58 Fed.Cl. at 525 (holding plaintiffs decision to resign rather than face a court-martial voluntary); Brown v.

Denholm & McKay Co. v. Commissioner

41 B.T.A. 986 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 30, 1940

A. 56, and notwithstanding the reversal of the Board’s decision in the Rieck case in Commissioner v. … Reviewed by the Board. Decision will he entered under Bule 50.

A Best Services Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Dec 12, 2024

Braughler Co., Inc. v. West, 127 F.3d 1476, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Consolidated Defense Corp., ASBCA No. 52315, 03-1 BCA ¶ 32,099. … BCA ¶ 33,472 at 165,933; Contel Advanced Systems, Inc., ASBCA No. 49073, 02-1 BCA ¶ 31,809 at 157,149; Trepte Construction Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 38555, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,595 at 113,385-86; see also Placeway Construction Corp. v.