Case law

Afghan Active Group (AAG)

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Apr 14, 2016

The timeliness of appealing a COFD is a matter of the Board's jurisdiction. See 41 U.S.C. § 7104 (2011) (formerly 41 U.S.C. § 606); Cosmic Constr. Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389, 1390 (Fed. … See FAR 33.21 l(a)(3)(v). But the COFD issued here only provided notice of AAG's rights to appeal to the Board, leaving the CoFC out completely.

Witcombe, McGeachin & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 84 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1924

D. 38261); and Tower & Sons v. United States (11 id. 291; T. D. 39125). … —United States v. Olivotti & Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 46 ; T. D. 36309); Reardon v. United States (11 id. 233; T. D. 38992).

Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Manufacturing Co.

667 F.2d 1005 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1981

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C. J. Webb, Inc., supra. … On at least one occasion, the board, in sustaining an opposition, has relied on the fact that the respective marks, as applied to identical products, were “barely visible.” American Optical Corp. v.

L. W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc. v. The United States

405 F.2d 1285 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1969

While we give great deference to the expertise and hence to the findings of the Board on these matters (cf. Red Circle Corp. v. … Corp. v. United States, 98 F.Supp. 590, 594 , 120 Ct.Cl. 139, 169 (1951); cf. Leal v. United States, 276 F.2d 378, 383 , 149 Ct.Cl. 451, 460 (1960); Ragonese v.

12-11 500

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Oct 31, 2014

Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994). … See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328 (1997). In the absence of evidence of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.

Steadman v. Comm'r

50 T.C. 369 · United States Tax Court · May 22, 1968

Mahler v. Commissioner, supra at 872. … United States v. White Dental Co., 274 U.S. 398 (1927); Polizzi v. Commissioner, supra.

Holmes v. Kelly

586 F.2d 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 9, 1978

In the similar case of Sze v. Bloch, 458 F.2d 137 , 59 CCPA 983, 173 USPQ 498 (1972), this court stated that the board was not bound by an ex parte determination of the Board of Appeals on a right to make issue. … to this court’s statement in Sze v.

Raiche v. Foley

103 F.2d 920 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1939

The cases of Domboorajian v. Domboorajian et al., 235 Mich. 668 , 209 N. W. 846 ; Clement v. Richards v. Meissner, 1904 C. D. 321; and Goddard v. Ordway, 101 U. S. 745 , are cited. … Appellee points out that in the Clement v. Richards v.

Anne M. Kent v. Office of Personnel Management

2015 MSPB 66 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Dec 31, 2015

See Davis v. … Burgess v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 758 F.2d 641, 643-44 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

In re Hogan

559 F.2d 595 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 28, 1977

Godfrey v. … V.

Collette Contracting, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Sep 3, 2015

Dated: 3 September 2015 Administra v, Judge Armed Services Board of Contract … with the Board's Charter.

Application of Chester John Cavallito and Allan Poe Gray

282 F.2d 357 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 10, 1960

As was said in White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47 , 7 S.Ct. 72, 74 , 30 L.Ed. 303 , “The claim is a statutory requirement, prescribed for the very purpose of making the patentee define precisely what his invention is.” … See Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan, 276 U.S. 358 , 48 S.Ct. 380 , 72 L.Ed. 610 ; Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. v. Celanese Corp. of America, 6 Cir., 135 F.2d 138 , and cases there cited.

Dairy Sales Corp. v. United States

593 F.2d 1002 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 21, 1979

As such, the Board’s determination, of course, is entitled to no degree of finality. See e.g., Truong Xuan Truc v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 51, 64 (1976) and cases cited therein. … In support of its contention that the Board erred as a matter of law in denying anticipatory profits, plaintiff cites two cases, namely, United States v. Behan, 110 U.S. 338 (1883) and United States v. Penn Mfg.

Engelbrecht v. Rogers

148 F.2d 102 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1945

The cases of Fishburn et al. v. Vincent, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1079, 88 F. (2d) 711, 33 USPQ 156 , and Duerr & Broyles v. Potts, 24 C. C. P. A. … On this phase of the case the board regarded the cases of In re Collins, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1053, 75 F. (2d) 1000, 25 USPQ 38 , and McCormick v. Malherbe, 28 C. C. P. A.

In re Marriott Corp.

459 F.2d 525 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1972

Board in In re Marriott-Hot Shoppes, Inc., reported in 156 USPQ page 257. … The menus are not unlike the point-of-sale counter and window displays which this court found adequate in Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 57 CCPA 1173, 427 F. 2d 823 , 166 USPQ, 34 (1970).

S

9 I. & N. Dec. 548 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1962

Leibowitz v. Sehlotfeldt, 94 F.2d 263 (C.A. 7, 1938)). … decision, Matter of V—, 7-363 (1956).

LODGE

19 I. & N. Dec. 500 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1987

Oral argument before the Board is denied. The appeal will be dismissed. … See Bonne-Annee v. INS, 810 F.2d 1077 (11th Cir. 1987); Townsend v. United States Department of Justice, INS, 799 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1986); Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1985).

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.

Feigelman v. Myers

476 F.2d 1375 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 26, 1973

In Myers v. … We agree with appellees that this appeal does not arise out of a final decision of the board. See Knickerbocker Toy Co. v. Faultless Starch Co., 467 F.2d 501 , 59 CCPA _ (1972). The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Weiss Noodle Company v. Golden Cracknel and Specialty Company

290 F.2d 845 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1961

Holland v. C. & A. Import Co., D.C.S.D.NY., 8 F.Supp. 259 ; Dadirrian v. Yacubian et al., 1 Cir., 98 F. 872 . See also Bart Schwartz International Textiles, Ltd. v. Federal Trade Commission, 289 F.2d 665 , 48 CCPA-. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .