Case law

Kelly v. United States

91 F. Supp. 305 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1950

As long ago as Hawkins v. … State ex rel. etc. v. Hayes, [Hays], 52 Mo. 578 ; Delafield v. The State of Illinois, 26 Wend, (N.Y.) 91 [192]; The People v. The Phoenix Bank, 24 id.

Rogers v. United States

59 Ct. Cl. 464 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 31, 1924

Street v. United States. 133 U. S. 299 .” … Nicholas v. United States, 257 U. S. 71 ; Norris v. United States, 257 U. S. 77 ; Arant v. Lane, 249 U. S. 367 . See also In re Sawyer et al., 124 U. S. 200 . The petition of the plaintiff must be dismissed.

SORIANO

21 I. & N. Dec. 516 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1996

Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 245 (citing Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696, 711 (1974)). … Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696 (1974).

Jordan v. United States

205 Ct. Cl. 65 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1974

Powers v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 388 (1966). In Smith v. United States, 168 Ct. … In Hutter v. United States, 170 Ct.

Issuance of a Preferred Stock Dividend by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Jan 25, 1985

Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70,75 (1984) (quoting TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 187 n.33 (1978)). The use of legislative history is “only admissible to solve doubt and not to create it.” Railroad Comm'n v. … Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281,311 (1979). Thus, the legislative history does not alter our conclusion that the transaction was authorized by the clear language of the statute.

Application of Oliver Kenneth Kelley

305 F.2d 909 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 2, 1962

In Kreidel v. … We note also the Board of Appeals decision of Ex parte Eugene V.

Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco d.b.a Cubatabaco v. General Cigar Co., Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Aug 26, 2020

Seats Inc. v. … While “[t]he Board does not read testimony and consider substantive objections to evidence, or determine the probative value of evidence, prior to final hearing,” Weyerhauser Co. v.

Stern v. Commissioner

14 B.T.A. 444 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 27, 1928

See Fitchie v. Brown, 211 U. S. 321 . This duty is one imposed upon the trustee and is to be discharged by him in the exercise of powers conferred by the will. … Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will be entered for the respondent. Phillips concurs in the result.

Hale v. United States

107 Fed. Cl. 339 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 2, 2012

This case returns to the court after a remand to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (“Army Board” or “ABCMR”). See Hale v. United States, No. 10-822C, 2011 WL 2268961 (Fed.Cl. June 9, 2011). Ms. … Hale must show by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the decision of the Army Board was arbitrary and capricious. Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1986) (quoting Dorl v.

Travis v. Baker

137 F.2d 109 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1943

See Goldsmith v. Mihaley, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1239, 90 F. (2d) 359. … Curtis v. Lindmark, 37 App. D. C. 322; Nelson v. Wolf et al., 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1290, 97 F. (2d) 632.

Birmingham v. Randall

171 F.2d 957 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1948

See Steenstrup v. Heath, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 981, 95 F. (2d) 514, 37 USPQ 205 ; McBride v. Teeple, Jr., 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 961, 109 F. (2d) 789, 44 USPQ 523 ; Buffington et al. v. Blair et al., 28 C. C. P. A. … See Lindemeyr v. Hoffman, 18 App. D. C. 1, 1901 C. D. 353, and Gallagher v. Hien, 25 App. D. C. 77, 1905 C. D. 624.

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).

A-G-G

25 I. & N. Dec. 486 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2011

v. … The case was remanded to the Board for further consideration. 12 The Fifth Circuit, in Tesfamichael v.

Michael R. Palafox v. Department of the Navy

2016 MSPB 43 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Dec 20, 2016

See Buelna v. … Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). 2 As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Cleveland Board of Education v.

S. S. Mullen, Inc. v. The United States

389 F.2d 390 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 19, 1968

back to the Board for determination of the factual issues * * Maxwell Dynamometer v. … Proceedings here will have to be suspended so that the parties can return to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals for determination of the amount due the plaintiff. United States v.

First Federal Savings Bank v. United States

55 Fed. Cl. 263 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 12, 2003

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. … Bank of Hegewisch v. United States, No. 93-162 (Fed.Cl. Dec. 12, 2002) (order concerning disclosure of board minutes).

Eastman Gardiner Naval Stores Co. v. Commissioner

4 B.T.A. 242 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 25, 1926

Alexander v. Pendleton, 8 Cranch, 462, 470 ; Young v. Mackall, 4 Maryland, 367 ; Wood on Limitations, 293, and cases cited. See also an extensive discussion of this subject by Mr. Justice White in Union Pacifie Ry. … Co. v. Wyler, 158 U. S. 285, 296-298 . There is a duty in the Board, imposed by statute, to hear and determine proceedings regularly and properly brought before it.

Marion Den Beste v. Harry Martin

252 F.2d 302 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 11, 1958

Trumbull v. Kirschbraun, 67 F.2d 974 , *305 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 758; Blodgett and Hanson v. Richter, 79 F.2d 922 , 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 749; Walsh v. Davidson, 101 F.2d 224 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 812; Kyrides v. … As above indicated, we are of the opinion that, as stated in Trumbull v. Kirschbraun, and Blodgett v.

Mendez v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 350 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 20, 2012

Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 998 (Fed.Cir.2006). Plaintiffs burden is to show by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the decision of the correction board fails this standard. Wronke v. … Plaintiff also must overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to the actions of a correction board. See Richey v.

13-32 780

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Oct 30, 2015

See Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002); see also Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 394 (1993). … Based upon a review of the entire evidence of record, the Board finds the Veteran's allegations herein to be lacking in credibility, and without any probative value. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.