Case law

CAMPOS

13 I. & N. Dec. 148 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1969

Crisologo Redondo Cam- pos v. INS, 402 F.2d 758. … Stinnett, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948) ; see U.S. v. Rangel-Perez, 179 F. Supp. 619 (S.D. Cal. 1959). 2 Frisina v. Esperdy, 61 Civ. 221 (S.D.

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.

Cattus v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 9 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1913

The board, however, held against these claims, and found that the articles in question were not toys in fact and were not proven to be known commercially as such. In the case of Illfelder v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. … The court feels justified by the record in refusing to disturb that finding of the board. In the case of the Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 102 ; T.

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.

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.

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.

Spencer v. United States

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

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

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.

Stein v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 36 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 18, 1910

The Board of General Appraisers found as facts: 1. … Muser v. Magone ( 155 U. S., 240 ); United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S., 16 ); United States v. Herman (91 Fed. Rep., 116); United States v. Kenworthy (68 Fed.

McWilliams Dredging Co. v. United States

118 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1950

In the case of Martin Wunderlich v. … The contract does not provide for an appeal on a question of law to this Board.

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.

Arens v. United States

24 Cl. Ct. 407 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 31, 1991

Muse v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 592, 601 (1990) (citations omitted); Moore v. United States, 5 Cl.Ct. 457, 459 (1984). … See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575-76 , 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1512-13 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Hambsch v.

Application of Lynn B. Wakefield and Frederick C. Foster

422 F.2d 897 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1970

THE BOARD The board affirmed all of the examiner’s rejections. We shall separately treat each affirmance and state our opinion with regard thereto. … Co. v. Linde Air Products, 336 U.S. 271 , 69 S.Ct. 535 , 93 L.Ed. 672 (1949). Moreover, there is no statutory authority for rejecting claims as being “unnecessary.”

IN RE TINKER AFSC/DP v. Department of the Air Force

2014 MSPB 51 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jul 15, 2014

Cooke v. U.S. … See Richard v. Department of Defense, 66 M.S.P.R. 146 , 159 (1995), modified on other grounds by Buckler v. Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 73 M.S.P.R. 476 , 496-97 (1997).

10-42 046

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 31, 2015

Combee v. Brown, 34 F. 3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994). … The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment.

Carey v. United States

16 Ct. Cust. 382 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1928

In United States v. … Gottlieb v. Thatcher, 151 U. S. 271 ; Rock Island Nat. Bank v. Thompson, 173 *392 Ill. 593 , 50 N. E. Rep. 1089; Mercantile Trust Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 193 ; Dinwiddie v.

In re Hellsund

474 F.2d 1307 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 15, 1973

The board cited no precedents in support of the last statement but I will supply some: These two are from the Solicitor’s brief: Armour & Company v. Swift & Company, 168 USPQ 269 (D.C. N.D. … Ill. 1970), (Findings of Fact 18,19 and Conclusion of Law 2); Lorenz v. Berkline Corp., 137 USPQ 29 (D.C. N.D. Ill. 1963) (Conclusions of Law 11, 17, and 21.) See also Sutter Products Co. v.

Small v. United States

37 Fed. Cl. 149 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 15, 1997

Small v. United States, 36 Fed.Cl. 43 (1996). On July 22,1996, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the court’s decision. … Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93 , 73 S.Ct. 534, 540 , 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953) (“[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army.”).

Daley v. Trube

88 F.2d 308 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1937

This is not a case like Levy v. Gould et al. (Levy v. Rice), 87 F.(2d) 524 , 24 C.C.P.A. … We need not discuss the Kaisling Case; that case is discussed in Doherty v. Dubbs, supra. ■ In Doherty v.