Case law

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).

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.

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.

In re McGinley

660 F.2d 481 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 1, 1981

Nor does the fact that decisions of the board and the courts on the issue of likelihood of confusion are often subjective detract from their validity. See Warner-Hudnut, Inc. v. … In FCC v.

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.

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.

In re Twiss

74 F.2d 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 24, 1934

We cannot concur with this conclusion of the board. … Pearl v. Ocean Mills, 11 Off. Gaz. 2 .

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.

In re Griffith

86 F.2d 405 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1936

In the familiar case of Gorham Company v. White, 81 U. … In Smith v. Whitman Saddle Company, 148 U.

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.

Gilbreth v. United States

94 Fed. Cl. 88 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 27, 2010

Though filing subsequent appeals to the corrections board will not usually toll a plaintiffs claim, see Van Allen v. … United States 70 Fed.Cl. 57, 63 (2006), if the “armed service itself reopens the case,” the previous board’s action is not final. Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct.Cl. 1 , 310 F.2d 381, 396 (1962); see also Bricker 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.

Koval v. Bodenschatz

463 F.2d 442 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 3, 1972

See Goodrich v. Harmsen, 58 CCPA 1144, 1153, 442 F. 2d 377, 383 , 169 USPQ 553 , 559 (1971); Hradel v. Griffith, 54 CCPA 911, 367 F. 2d 851 , 151 USPQ 580 (1966). … Feigelman, 59 CCPA 834, 455 F. 2d 596, 604 , 172 USPQ 580 , 587 (1959); Klemperer v. Price, 47 CCPA 729, 271 F. 2d 743 , 123 USPQ 539 (1959). Some, in fact, find clear expression in the board’s opinion.

Van Allen v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 57 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 27, 2006

Cooley v. United States, 324 F.3d 1297, 1305 (Fed.Cir.2003); Biddle v. United States, 186 Ct.Cl. 87, 100-01 (1968); Bookman v. United States, 197 Ct.Cl. 108, 112 , 453 F.2d 1263, 1265 (1972); Friedman v. … Barrett v. Principi, 363 F.3d 1316, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2004); Goewey v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 104, 112 , 612 F.2d 539, 544 (1979); Ware v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 782, 788 (2003).