Case law

Precision Piping, Inc. v. United States

29 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,292 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 5, 1982

Dayley v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 305, 309 (1965). In B. D. Click Co. v. United States, 225 Ct. … This argument is not open to the petitioner because it failed to raise the point before the Board. Conrac Corp. v. United States, 214 Ct. Cl. 561, 573 , 558 F.2d 994, 1000 (1977); William F. Klingensmith, Inc. 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.

Project Map, Inc. v. United States

486 F.2d 1375 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 14, 1973

On the contrary, in United States v. … Eastport S.S. v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 210, 214 , 130 F. Supp. 333, 335 (1955). Plaintiff also contends that Dale Ingram, Inc. is contrary to the rationale of Eastport S.S. v. United States, supra, 131 Ct.

Philadelphia Regent Builders, Inc. v. United States

634 F.2d 569 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 22, 1980

All findings of fact by the board must be upheld unless they are fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or not supported by substantial evidence. Koppers Co. v. … Tapper & Assocs. v. United States, 222 Ct. Cl. 34 , 611 F.2d 354 (1979); Troup Bros. v. United States, 221 Ct. Cl. 850 (1979)2 Should read "Administrator” instead of "Secretary.”

G-K

26 I. & N. Dec. 88 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2013

See Medellin v. … Chavarria v.

Alexander Buelna v. Department of Homeland Security

2014 MSPB 45 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jun 19, 2014

For example, in Cleveland Board of Education v. … See Bosley v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 162 F.3d 665 , 672 (Fed.

American Ordnance LLC

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jul 29, 2014

Army Chief Trial Attorney CPT Anthony V. … with the Board's Charter.

Dwaine R. Franklin v. Robert J. Hopper

312 F.2d 949 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1963

Hopper renewed his motions, designated (1), (2) and (3) above, at final hearing before the Patent Office Board of Patent Interferences. The board, citing Josserand v. Taylor, Jr., 138 F.2d 58 , 31 CCPA 709;. … Becker, 107 F.2d 601 , 27 CCPA 746; Smith v. Foley v. Anderson v. Smitb (Commissioner of Patents), 1908 C.D. 210; and Smith and Stadum v. Klemperer (Patent Office Board of Interference Examiners), 103 USPQ 275 .

Meyer v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 15 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 17, 1923

Discussing a similar question it was said by this court in substance in United States v. Hohner ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 122 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Application of Walter L. Borkowski and John J. Van Venrooy

422 F.2d 904 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1970

Neither have appellants sought to have the board denominate the raising of this issue a new ground of rejection under Rule 196 (b). Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm the decision of the board as to claims 7-10. … Compare Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270, 271 , 37 S.Ct. 82 , 61 L.Ed. 286 (1916). 3 .

Ross Engineering Co. v. United States

127 F. Supp. 580 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1955

Paretta Contracting Co. v. United States, 109 C. Cls. 324 , Sunswick Corp. v. United States, 109 C. Cls. 772 , cert. den. 334 U. S. 827 , and Poirier & McLane Corporation v. United States, 128 C. Cls. 117 , 120 F. … be authorized except upon approval of the Board.

Fulbright v. United States

97 Fed. Cl. 221 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 16, 2011

See Coltec Indus., Inc. v. … Corp. v.

VASQUEZ-MUNIZ

23 I. & N. Dec. 207 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2002

Concurring Opinion: HOLMES, Board Member. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: ROSENBERG, Board Member, joined by MILLER, BRENNAN, ESPENOZA, and OSUNA, Board Members. … V 1999).

Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc. v. United States

531 F.2d 1037 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1976

An appeal would be heard de novo by a board of contract appeals and their remedies would extend even further than to such a board. … Silliman v. United States, 101 U.S. 465 (1879); Loral Corp. v. United States, 193 Ct. Cl. 473, 482 , 434 F. 2d 1328, 1332 (1970); John Arborio, Inc. v. United States, 110 Ct. Cl. 432 , 76 F.

In re Bose Corp.

546 F.2d 893 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 16, 1976

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) affirming the refusal to register SYNCOM for loudspeaker systems for high-fidelity music reproduction. … See also In re Chicago Rawhide Manufacturing Co., 455 F.2d 563 , 59 CCPA 963, 173 USPQ 8 (1972); Mont-O-Min Sales Corp. v. Wyeth Inc., 92 F.Supp. 150 , 86 USPQ 315 (W.D.Mo.1950); Textron Inc. v.

NH Beach Pizza LLC v. Cristy's Pizza Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Aug 29, 2016

See Perry v. … Swatch AG v.

Taylor v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 54 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 5, 1995

A substantially complete and fair record is a necessary requirement of proper consideration by a selection board. Sanders, 594 F.2d at 814 ; Weiss v. … The decision of the Board, therefore, is supported by substantial evidence, and cannot be further reviewed. V. Dodson Distinguished The court notes that this case is distinguishable from Dodson v.

Swan & Finch Co. v. United States

37 Ct. Cl. 101 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 16, 1901

United States v. Moore ( 95 U. S. R., 760 ), Brown v. United States ( 113 U. S. R., 568 ), and numerous other authorities. … In Brown v. Houston ( 114 U. S.

Collins v. Commissioner

61 T.C. 693 · United States Tax Court · Mar 7, 1974

The foundation's initial board of trustees consisted of petitioner and his two sisters, both of whom were registered nurses holding college degrees. By limiting board membership to his immediate family, Dr. … Geurkink v. United States , 354 F. 2d 629 , 631 (C.A. 7) ; Bouschor v. United States , 316 F. 2d 451 , 457-458 *161 (C.A. 8) ; De Masters v.

13-11 595

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Oct 30, 2015

Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995) (en banc) (additional disability resulting from aggravation of a nonservice-connected disorder by a service-connected disorder is also compensable under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310). … See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d. 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board finds his testimony credible.