Case law

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

Homeland Security Construction Corporation

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Aug 20, 2015

Army Chief Trial Attorney CPT Anthony V. Lenze, JA CPT Evan C. … in conformance with the Board's Charter.

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 .

Hugh Cecil Binstead and Henry James Stockwell v. Hans Littmann and Brüno Müller

242 F.2d 766 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1957

here considered, citing Bergstrom and Trobeck v. … It is true, as was stated in Brand v.

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 ].

Harvey Ward Locke v. United States

283 F.2d 521 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 2, 1960

Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Board of Review, General Services Administration, and following a full hearing, 2 the board rendered the following decision: “1. Contract No. … The board’s decision is entirely supportable in view of the record and we shall not disturb it. Plaintiff’s second contention sounds in tort and is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. Bornhoft v.

Merson v. United States

173 Ct. Cl. 92 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1965

Boards may seek and consider the comments of the medical authorities of the United States in considering the entire record. Uhley v. United States, 137 Ct. Cl. 275 ; 147 F. Supp. 497 (1957); Towell v. … of the Board [that Boland was not incapacitated at the time of his release from duty]. * * * In Williams v.

Baker v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 810 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 11, 1995

It is the judgement of the board president and the members of the board that those officers recommended for retention are the best qualified officers. Based on City of Richmond v. … Relying on Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 , 93 S.Ct. 1241, 1244 , 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973) (per curiam), and Sierra Club v.

Linville v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 48 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 13, 2001

Linville v. West, 11 Vet.App. 60, 63-64 (1998) (en banc). The appellant appealed to the U.S. … Linville v. West, 165 F.3d 1382, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Pere Jarboe v. Depatment of Health and Human Services

2023 MSPB 21 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Aug 1, 2023

See Social Security Administration v. … Following Tunik I, the Board similarly dismissed other constructive removal complaints filed by sitting ALJs. See Schloss v.

12-13 598

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). … See Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 429 (1995).

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.

United States v. Borgfeldt

1 Ct. Cust. 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1911

Evidence was taken before the board on behalf of the importers and the Government. The Board of General Appraisers found these slides were for use in toy magic lanterns and sustained the protest. … In the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, Wheeler, judge, apparently decided January 16, 1900 (but which we do not find to have been published in the Federal Reporter until 1903, see Borgfeldt v.