Case law

Frederick Gash, Inc. v. Mayo Clinic

461 F.2d 1395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1972

See Morehouse Manufacturing Corp. v. J. Strickland Co., 56 CCPA 946, 955, 407 F. 2d 881, 888 , 160 USPQ 715 , 721 (1969). Tbe tbrust of appellant’s position is that the board stressed tbe wrong facts. … However, the board considered It and there Is no Indication that appellees objected.to it below. Certainly the board did not treat such an objection.

Benton v. United States

488 F.2d 1017 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 19, 1973

National Labor Relations Board v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291 (1965). … Por example, In Ramspeck v.

Donatus U. Unara v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Merit Systems Protection Board · Nov 4, 2015

Brown v. U.S. Postal Service, 115 M.S.P.R. 609, ¶ 9, aff’d, 469 F. App’x 852 (Fed Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 414 (2012). … Conforto v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 713 F.3d 1111, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Staats v. U.S. Postal Service, 99 F.3d 1120, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

Cosmopolitan Manufacturing Co. v. United States

297 F.2d 546 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 12, 1962

Empire Institute of Tailoring, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.Supp. 409 , 142 Ct.Cl. 165 ; Levine v. *548 United States, 137 F.Supp. 955 , 133 Ct.Cl. 774 ; Sese v. United States, 113 F.Supp. 658 , 125 Ct.Cl. 526 ; Gray v. … was made, because there was pending before the Board a motion for reconsideration.

CHAIREZ and SAMA

26 I. & N. Dec. 686 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2015

of Descamps v. … BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(l)(i) (2015), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer to me the above-captioned cases for review of its decisions.

Alexander v. United States

148 Ct. Cl. 24 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1960

Arant v. Lane, 249 U.S. 367 (1919), and Bailey v. United States, 144 C. Cls. 720 . … class by two Selection Boards, including the 1952 Selection Board, shall be separated from the Service. 3.

ANSOL, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · May 19, 2017

Dated: 19May2017 f{Y c::>.V:~ ~HD.WOODROW Administrative Judge … Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals  I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA

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.

Charles H. Blanchard, Jr., Doing Business as Blanchard Construction Company v. The United States

347 F.2d 268 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1965

Therefore, the administrative appeals board decision lacks finality. See W. H. Edwards Eng’r Corp. v. United States, 161 Ct.Cl. 322 (1963) and Beacon Construction Co. v. … There was here no testimony submitted to the Board or any Board hearing in the usual sense.

In Re Air Crash Disaster at Tweed-New Haven Airport on June 7, 1971

343 F. Supp. 951 · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · May 30, 1972

Seven of the ten actions are now pending in that district and fifteen of the twenty-eight passengers on board were Connecticut residents. … Perry, etc. v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. Civil Action No. 14724 Marion E. Kerber, etc. v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. Civil Action No. 14725 Norman H. Kelly v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc.

In re Phillips

593 F.2d 1021 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1979

has no substantial practical application except in connection with such a computer; that the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. … On reconsideration, the board says simply that appellants’ process is an “algorithm” (“a procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem”) within the meaning given that term in Benson and Parker v.

Spencer v. United States

100 F. Supp. 444 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 2, 1951

In United States v. … * * * ” In Runkle v.

Spokane Valley General Hospital, Inc. v. United States

688 F.2d 771 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 8, 1982

The district court overturned the Board’s decision because it was "unsupported by substantial evidence” and was "erroneous in its legal conclusions.” Spokane Valley General Hospital, Inc. v. Harris, No. … Louis University v.

Stringham v. Commissioner

12 T.C. 580 · United States Tax Court · Apr 15, 1949

Keever Stringham, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent Stringham v. Commissioner Docket No. 17101 United States Tax Court 12 T.C. 580 ; 1949 U.S. Tax Ct. … Cohan v.

08-16 214

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Nov 30, 2015

Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 392-94 (1993). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. … Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment.

Pacific Industries, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.

425 F.2d 1265 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1970

Paul Hydraulic Hoist Company, 83 USPQ 315 (CCPA, 1949); Bardahl Oil Company et al. v. Atomic Oil Company of Oklahoma, Inc. [ 351 F.2d 148 ], 146 USPQ 637 (CA 10, 1965) and In re W. A. … To support this conclusion, heavy reliance was placed by the board on this court’s opinion in DeWalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp., 289 F.2d 656 , 48 CCPA 909 (1961).

Richard v. United States

152 F. Supp. 433 · United States Court of Claims · May 1, 1956

Ed. 662 ; United States v. Stahl, 151 U. S. 366 , 14 S. Ct. 347 , 38 L. Ed. 194 ; Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. United States, 164 U. S. 190, 207-212 , 17 S. Ct. 45 , 41 L. Ed. 399 ; United States v. Wurts, 303 U. … Denby v. Berry, 263 U. S. 29 .

United States v. International Forwarding Co.

6 Ct. Cust. 25 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1915

D. 32573), Guthman, Solomons & Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 286 ; T. D. 32574), Cohn & Rosenberger v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 288 ; T. D. 32575), and Cohn & Rosenberger et als. v. … At least this court is not warranted in saying' that there was no evidence before the board justifying that finding. In this particular, this case is on all fours with the case of Wolff v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust.

Dot Systems, Inc. v. United States

30 Cont. Cas. Fed. 70,110 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 25, 1982

Tapper & Assocs. v. United States, 222 Ct. Cl. 34, 38-41 , 611 F.2d 354, 357-58 (1979); Troup Bros., Inc. v. United States, 221 Ct. Cl. 850 (1979). … Webco Lumber, Inc. v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 457 , 677 F.2d 860 (1982); Caffall Bros. Forest Products, Inc. v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 517 , 678 F.2d 1071 , cert. denied October 12, 1982; Gregory Lumber Co. v.

Victory Construction Co. v. United States

510 F.2d 1379 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 19, 1975

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 191 Ct. Cl. 141 , 423 F. 2d 300 (1970); Hills Transportation Co. v. United States, 204 Ct Cl. 51, 492 F. 2d 1394 (1974). … Malat v. Riddell, 383 U.S. 569, 571-72 (1966). See also Hotpoint Co. v. United States, 127 Ct. Cl. 402, 406 , 117 F. Supp. 572, 574 , cert. denied, 348 U.S. 820 (1954).