Case law

Creed v. Potts

96 F.2d 317 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1938

Norling v. Hayes, 37 App.D.C. 169 . … Kollsman v. Carbonara, 88 F.2d 966 , 24 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1149.

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.

Thomas v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 10, 2021

default judgment] vacated or set aside” but is instead “questioning [whether] the action taken by the Department of Justice” was justified with respect to the Department of Justice’s “representing the Railroad Retirement Board … Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 3 1997); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Further, Mr.

Morris v. United States

163 Ct. Cl. 259 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 15, 1963

There was no requirement that the plaintiff go before the Correction Board and the proceedings of and before that Board are immaterial to the resolution of the conventional judicial cause of action now presented to this court … Friedman v. United States, supra; Carver v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 67, 74 (1962); Aflague v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 80, 87 , 309 F. 2d 753, 756 (1962).

Coosa Land Co. v. Commissioner

29 B.T.A. 389 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 23, 1933

McMillan Metal Co., 2 B.T.A. 797 ; General Water Heater Co., 14 B.T.A. 4 ; Atlas Plaster & Fuel Co., 18 B.T.A. 1123; Brown & Haley, 21 B.T.A. 752 ; Barto Co., 21 B.T.A. 1197 ; Gray & Co. v. … Roberts, 19 B.T.A. 351 ; Dawkins Lumber Co. v. Row, 276 S.W. 493 ; Duncan v. Gage, 250 S.W. 647 ; Boggs & Buhl v. Commissioner , 34 Fed. (2d) 859. Decision will be entered u/nder Rule 50. Sec. 284.

United States v. Glanson Co.

43 Cust. Ct. 601 · United States Customs Court · Jul 8, 1959

Same v. Same, 38 Cust. Ct. 638 , Reap. Dec. 8793. … In the case of United States v. Jovita Perez, 36 C.C.P.A.

191202-46870

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Nov 30, 2020

Accordingly, the Board concludes that entitlement to DIC is not warranted as a matter of law. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1310, 1315; 38 C.F.R. § 3.5. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). … See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. M.

Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 285 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

McKesson v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 213 -216). … D. 11074); Levi v. United States (126 Fed. Rep., 420; T. D. 25050); in re Isaacs, Vought & Co. (T. D. 25410); in re F. Behrend (T. D. 25733); in re F. R. Philipps & Sons (T. D. 27051); United States v. Proctor (145 Fed.

Voisinet v. Coglianese

455 F.2d 1064 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1972

See Knowles v. Tibbetts, 52 CCPA 1800, 347 F.2d 591 , 146 USPQ 59 (1965); White v. Lemmerman, 52 CCPA 968, 341 F.2d 110 , 144 USPQ 409 (1965). … We conclude that the board was correct in holding the testing to be adequate.

Robert Frederick v. Department of Homeland Security

2015 MSPB 11 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Feb 10, 2015

See Alvarado v. … See Dalton 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.

SCOA Industries, Inc. v. Kennedy & Cohen, Inc.

530 F.2d 953 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1976

A ruling by us on the propriety of the board’s ruling would not be “fundamental to the further conduct of the case,” Gillespie v. … See McGarr v. Hayford, 52 F.R.D. 219 (S.D. Cal.1971).

Brady Bunte v. M.C.I. Foods, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Feb 19, 2008

P. 33(b)(4); Envirotech Corp. v. … No Fear v.

H. R. Henderson & Co. v. United States

169 Ct. Cl. 228 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1965

Co. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 802, 808-09 , 337 F. 2d 861, 863-64 (1963), and WPC Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 163 Ct. … Co. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. at p. 808 .

Berkeley Lights, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Oct 25, 2022

Here, however, Applicant does not argue that the evidence of record fails to support the Board’s finding of mere descriptiveness, that the Board misapplied the law, or that the Board ignored evidence supporting … See, e.g., Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed.

05-24 466

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2015

Therefore, such claim has been resolved and is no longer on appeal before the Board. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. … Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

Ranieri v. United States

96 Ct. Cl. 494 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 2, 1942

brown clay. … Trimount Dredging Co. v. United States, 80 C. Cls. 559 ; James Stewart & Co., Inc., v. United States, 94 C. Cls. 95 .

Stoudt v. Guggenheim

651 F.2d 760 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1981

United States v. Silliman, 167 F.2d 607 (CA 3 1948), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 825 , 69 S.Ct. 48 , 93 L.Ed. 379 (1948); IB Moore’s Federal Practice 10.405[1], at 622-624 (2d ed. 1974). In the early case of Blackford v. … See S.E.C. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 203 , 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1580 , 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947).

Taylor v. United States

106 Fed. Cl. 443 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 20, 2012

Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1157 (Fed.Cir.1983). Because the Court of Federal Claims does not sit as a “super correction board,” Skinner v. … Nor will it consider issues that were not raised in the proceedings before the board. See Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed.Cir.2006); see also Lizut v.

American Woolen Co. v. United States

21 F. Supp. 125 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1937

to the Board. … In the case of Peerless Woolen Mills v.