Case law

Arlington Alliance, Ltd. v. United States

685 F.2d 1353 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 11, 1982

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. … We held that having elected to go to the Board, the plaintiff could not "according to our holding in Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v.

Jenks v. Knight

90 F.2d 654 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1937

Nevertheless, we there upon that record affirmed the decision of the Board in awarding priority to Green. The subject-matter of the Phelan v. … The Board was persuaded that its decision was controlled for the most part by the rule laid down in Chapman v. Beede, 54 App.D.C. 209 , 296 F. 956, 958 , which was decided subsequently to Chapman and Chapman v.

Grant v. United States

5 Ct. Cl. 71 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1869

.” *82 (1 Parsons on Contracts, 541; see, also, Munford v. Brown, 6 Cowen, 476; Dubois v. Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, 4 Wend., 291 .) … Besides, this general doctrine here enforced has been recognized by this court in the case of Fowler v. The United States, ( 3 C. Cls. R., 43 .)

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.

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.

United States v. Wertheimer Bros.

2 Ct. Cust. 515 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1912

Velvet and plush ribbons were held not to be pile fabrics, Jaffray v. United States (71 Fed. Rep., 953; 77 Fed. … See Arnold v. United States ( 147 U. S., 494 ), In re Kursheedt Mfg. Co. (54 Fed. Rep., 159, and G. A. 4120).

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.

Paragon Defense Solutions, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Mar 5, 2026

We note that Paragon pursued these appeals pursuant to Board Rule 12.2, Small Claims (Expedited) Procedure. … Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Restoration Specialists, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,503 at 187,139.

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.

Watnick v. Commissioner

90 T.C. 326 · United States Tax Court · Mar 9, 1988

Brown that Exxon would be willing to meet or better any other offers. … Brown’s partner, collaborated with Mr. Brown on the preparation of petitioner’s expert report. Prior to his partnership with Mr. Brown, Mr.

Sweeney & James Co. v. Commissioner

10 B.T.A. 966 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 23, 1928

SWEENEY & JAMES CO., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Sweeney & James Co. v. Commissioner Docket Nos. 10266, 19783. … Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered for the petitioner. *4007

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.

O'Connor v. Commissioner

35 B.T.A. 402 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 5, 1937

This depends upon whether the petitioner was an officer or employee of the board of education or was merely an independent contractor. Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514 . … The instant proceeding is clearly distinguishable from such cases as Lucas v. Reed, 281 U. S. 699 , reversing Reed v. Commissioner, 34 Fed. (2d) 263; Lucas v. Howard, 280 U. S. 526 , reversing Howard v.

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

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Feb 19, 2008

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

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.

West Point Utilities, LLC

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Sep 4, 2025

In Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. … Group, Inc. v. United States, 289 F.3d 795, 800-01 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Travel Ctr. v. Barram, 236 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Dobrydneva v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

94 Fed. Cl. 134 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 17, 2010

In Capizzano v. … In de Bazan v.

In re Parole

46 Pa. D. & C. 542 · Pennsylvania Department of Justice · Feb 26, 1943

Justice Stern in Commonwealth ex rel. v. … This subject was dealt with in considerable detail in Commonwealth v.