Case law

United States v. Myers

4 Ct. Cust. 431 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1913

In this Treasury decision other decisions are referred to, among which are United States v. Pierce ( 147 Fed., 199 ). … It was allowed free entry by the board.

Taylor v. Principi

17 Vet. App. 148 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 12, 2003

TAYLOR, APPELLANT , V. ANTHONY J. … Following oral argument before this Court on September 18, 2002, the Federal Circuit issued Herndon v. Principi, 311 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Heigerick v. Commissioner

45 T.C. 475 · United States Tax Court · Feb 23, 1966

However, a new board of trustees was elected and this board ultimately decided to open the hospital as an open-staff hospital and it was opened February 12,1960, and it has remained an open-staff hospital. … United States v. Akin, 248 F. 2d 742 , certiorari denied 355 U.S. 956 ; Kauai Terminal, Ltd., 36 B.T.A. 893 ; S. M.

Griffin & Dickson v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,627 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 24, 1989

Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399 (5th Cir.1985); Morris v. Ocean Sys. Inc., 730 F.2d 248 (5th Cir.1984). … In Baltimore Contractors Inc. v.

09-35 606

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jan 30, 2015

The question of whether new and material evidence has been received is one that must be addressed by the Board. See Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380 (Fed. … See Cornele v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 59, 62 (1993); Mintz v. Brown, 6 Vet.

L. Rosenman Corporation v. The United States

390 F.2d 711 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 16, 1968

Upon appeal, the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (hereafter referred to as the “Board”) divided evenly on the question of liability. 1 Nevertheless, the members of the Board unanimously agreed that … Proceedings here will have to be suspended so that the parties can return to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals for determination of the amount due plaintiff. United States v.

City of Galveston v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 685 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 17, 1995

Workers of Seafarers Int’l Union v. Board of Trustees of the Galveston Wharves, 351 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir.1965). . City of Galveston, Texas v. Hill, 519 S.W.2d 103, 105 (Tex.1975). . … Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16-17, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801-02 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965); Horner v. Andrzjewski, 811 F.2d 571, 574 (Fed.Cir.1987), . Rowan Companies, Inc. v.

Birlinn Limited v. Angus Stewart

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 3, 2014

Mailed: September 3, 2014 Opposition No. 91214145 Birlinn Limited v. … The Board may suspend a proceeding pending final determination of a foreign action between the parties. See Marie Claire Album S.A. v. Kruger GmbH & Co. KG, 29 USPQ2d 1792, 1793-94 (TTAB 1993).

Sterling Brewers, Inc. v. Schenley Industries, Inc.

441 F.2d 675 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1971

the filing of a petition to cancel “at any time” be applicable. *1174 See Hy-Cross Hatchery, Inc. v. … We have considered the opinion in Corr v.

Farrington v. Mikeska

155 F.2d 412 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1946

Thompson v. Dicke, 110 F.2d 98 , 27 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 931. … The decisions in the cases of Schweyer v. Thomas, 68 F.2d 953 , 21 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 859; Garand v. Pedersen, 76 F.2d 407 , 22 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1161; and Hogue v. Cowling et al., 101 F.2d 541 , 26 C.C.P.A.

Cayce v. United States

170 Ct. Cl. 402 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1965

Lipp v. United States, 373 U.S. 932 (1963). A Retiring Board was therefore available to plaintiff in November 1946. … See, e.g., Friedman v. United States, supra; Hoppock v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 87 (1963). The presence or absence of a Disposition Board (or like board) is immaterial. The defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Appeal of the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance

1 B.T.A. 767 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 16, 1925

The relief which he was denied in court he in effect was given through an appeal to the Board. … San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 116 U. S. 138 ; Little v. Bowers 134 U. S. 547 ; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651 .

BOWE

17 I. & N. Dec. 488 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1981

Board Member Maguire, Concurring; Board Member Appleman, Dissenting. … This Board began diluting such requirements in a line of cases which prompted the Second. Circuit to hold in Francis v.

Sperry Corp. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,234 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 5, 1986

The interpretations of law made by the Board and applied to the facts are not accorded the finality by the Wunderlich Act that the Board’s factual determinations receive. BCM Corp. v. … George Hyman Construction Co. v. United States, 215 Ct.Cl. 70 , 564 F.2d 939 (1977). Oftentimes the expertise of a Board in such matters can be helpful to the court. Icono v.

Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. v. Carl's Bar & Delicatessen, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Mar 31, 2011

v. CARL'S BAR & DELICATESSEN, INC. … See, for example, General Council of the Assemblies of God v.

Kingsley v. United States

172 Ct. Cl. 549 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1965

whether a claim accrued upon final action of the Correction Board, was as follows: In Patterson v. … Nichols v. United States, 158 Ct. Cl. 412 . In Hoen v. United States, 157 Ct.

10-06 071

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Apr 29, 2016

See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 , 4.45, 4.59; DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). … See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994).

Wood v. United States

17 F. Supp. 521 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1937

In support of its contention the defendant cites Stearns Co. v. United States, 291 U.S. 54 , 54 S.Ct. 325 , 78 L.Ed. 647 , Daube v. … Stearns Co. v. United States, 291 U.S. 54 , 54 S.Ct. 325 , 78 L.Ed. 647 ; Leisenring v.

Martin v. Snyder

214 F.2d 177 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1954

Konet v. Haskins, 179 F.2d 1008 , 37 C.C.P.A., Patents, 913. The decision of the board reflects that every material phase of this litigation has been carefully considered and dealt with. … Potts v. Kimball, supra.

American Bead Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1916

Wolff & Co. v. … This court has recently tersely declared that a stipulation of facts was binding upon the board and upon this court, as has ever been held by all courts. Salomon & Co. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 5 ; T.