Case law

United States v. Coroneos Bros.

9 Ct. Cust. 220 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1919

We are not prepared to say that the board erred in following Ha-bicht v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 10 ; T. D. 30772). … The board, was of the opinion that this finding brought the case-within United States v. Wallace ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 142 ; T. D. 33413).

Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation v. The United States

429 F.2d 431 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1970

Co. v. … S. v. Rice] v. U. S., 317 U.S. 61 [ 63 S.Ct. 120 , 87 L.Ed. 53 ] ; Choteau [sic] v. U. S., 95 U.S. 61 [ 24 L.Ed. 371 ]; Crook Co. v. U. S., 270 U.S. 4 [ 46 S.Ct. 184 , 70 L.Ed. 438 ].

13-03 017

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Feb 29, 2016

See Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002); see also Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 394 (1993). … See Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292 (1991); Verdon v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 529, 536-7 (1996).

Claremont Polychemical Corp. v. Atlantic Powdered Metals, Inc.

470 F.2d 636 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1972

E. g., Hancock v. American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey, 203 F.2d 737 , 40 CCPA 931 (1953) (CYCLONE and TORNADO, both for fencing); and Beacon-Morris Corp. v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. .

In re Wyer

655 F.2d 221 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 30, 1981

In support of this proposition the board cited the leading cases of Philips Electronic & Pharmaceutical Industries Corp. v. Thermal & Electronics Industries, Inc., 450 F.2d 1164 , 171 USPQ 641 (3d Cir. 1971), and I.C.E. … Philips Electronics & Pharmaceutical Industries *226 Corp. v. Thermal & Electronic Industries, Inc., 450 F.2d 1164, 1170 , 171 USPQ 641, 645 (3d Cir. 1971); I.C.E. Corp. v.

Meyer v. Department of Health & Human Services, Social Security Administration

666 F.2d 540 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1981

The field office board conducted a hearing on March 12 and 13, 1980. It found that, based on Parker v. … Parker v. Defense Logistics Agency, 1 MSPB 489 (1980). Wells v. Harris, 1 MSPB 199 (1979), cited by petitioner is inapplicable here since in that case the board was concerned with how 5 U.S.C. § 7701 (c)(1) (Supp.

Swan & Finch Co. v. United States

37 Ct. Cl. 101 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 16, 1901

United States v. Moore ( 95 U. S. R., 760 ), Brown v. United States ( 113 U. S. R., 568 ), and numerous other authorities. … In Brown v. Houston ( 114 U. S.

Cruger's Inc. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 516 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1925

—Rubey v. Coal & Mining Co. (21 Mo. Appls. 159, 169); People v. St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Co. ( 176 Ill. 512, 522 ); National Bank v. G. C. &. S. F. Ry. Co. ( 95 Tex. 176, 183 ); Oppenheimer v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

David R. Ellis v. United States Postal Service

2014 MSPB 73 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Sep 9, 2014

Id. at 27-28. ¶9 The Board has stated that the criteria for proving misrepresentation are the same as those for proving falsification. See Guerrero v. … ID at 11 n.7; see Hulett v.

04-25 813

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2015

Jones v. West, 12 Vet. App. 98 (1999); Mindenhall v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 271, 274 (1994); Ashley v. Brown, 2 Vet. App. 62, 64 (1992). … See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). B.

Algonac Manufacturing Co. v. United States

428 F.2d 1241 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1970

V. D. … The Supreme Court said in Merritt v.

United States v. Baker Castor Oil Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 338 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1911

The board found as a fact that there wa,s present about 5 per cent of dirt, gravel, etc., and directed a reliquidation accordingly, relying for authority on the case of Seeberger v. Wright ( 157 U. … .: In that case (Seeberger v.

Donnelly v. United States

134 F. Supp. 635 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1955

Goldstein v. United States, Ct.Cl., 130 F.Supp. 330 . Appointment is an executive function, involving the exercise of executive discretion. Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290 , 20 S.Ct. 574 , 44 L.Ed. 774 . … United States v. McLean, 95 U.S. 750, 753 , 24 L.Ed. 579 ; Amundson v. United States, 120 F.Supp. 201 , 128 Ct.Cl. 80 ; Coleman v. United States, 100 Ct.Cl. 41 .

08-34 107

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 29, 2014

See Lathan v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 359, 365 (1995). … . § 3.310(b); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995).

Kyrides v. Bruson

102 F.2d 416 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1939

The views of the board respecting this contention have been quoted, supra. In presenting the case before us counsel for Kyrides relies strongly upon the case of Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Church-ward I. … Walker on Patents, § 141a; Hunter v. Stikeman, 13 App.D.C. 214, 226 ; Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App.D.C. 86, 92 ; Lindemeyr v. Hoffman, 18 App.D. *420 C. 1, 5; Roe v. Hanson, 19 App.D.C. 559, 564 .”

United States v. Kastor

6 Ct. Cust. 52 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1915

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appeals. … Later the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in United States v.

In re Pearson

494 F.2d 1399 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1974

The board affirmed the rejection on this ground. Of course, a rejection such as that sustained by the board would normally be based upon one of the applicable subsections of 35 U.S.C. § 102 . … As the board pointed out, such terms do not differentiate the claimed composition from those known to the prior art. See Kropa v.

Scherr and McDermott Inc. v. The United States

360 F.2d 966 · United States Court of Claims · May 13, 1966

Co. v. United States, 58 Ct. Cl. 1 (1922). … Miller, Inc. v.

Barclays Capital Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 20, 2017

v. CVP Sys. … Genesco Inc. v.

Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd. v. Barclays Capital Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 20, 2017

v. CVP Sys. … Genesco Inc. v.