Case law

11-25 866

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jan 30, 2015

. § 4.14; Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 262 (1994). … Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994).

Pfeiffer Brewing Co. v. Bowles

146 F.2d 1006 · Emergency Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 1945

Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 , 9 S.Ct. 231 , 32 L.Ed. 623 . Class legislation discriminating against some and favoring others is prohibitive. … United States Gypsum v. Brown, Em.App., 1943, 137 F.2d 803 ; Northwood Apartments v. Brown, Em.App., 1943, 137 F.2d 809 ; Chatlos v. Brown, Em.App., 1943, 136 F.2d 490 .

11-25 670

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 31, 2015

Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). … See Carpenter v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 240, 242 (1995); see also Richard v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 266, 267 (1996) (citing DSM-IV).

C. W. Schmid D/B/A C. W. Schmid Plumbing & Heating v. The United States

351 F.2d 651 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1965

Applying the rationale of Rice v. … The Board’s determinations in this regard are legal decisions which are not binding on the court, 41 U.S.C. § 322 , W. H. Edwards Engineering Corp. v. United States, 161 Ct.Cl. 322 .

Powers v. Commissioner

20 B.T.A. 753 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 10, 1930

The Supreme Court has characterized the right of appeal to the Board a “ valuable right.” Russell v. United States, 278 U. S. 181 . … Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 141 .

Deibel v. Heise & Schumacher

46 F.2d 570 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1931

Gowen v. Hendry et al., 37 F. (2d) 426, 17 C. C. P. A. 789; Brogden v. Slater, 40 F.(2d) 988 ,17 C. C. P. A. 1240. … Miel v. Young, 29 App. D. C. 481; Western Electric Company v. Martin, 39 App. D. C. 147; Leonard v. Pardee, 39 App. D. C. 458; Scott v. Longtin et al., 52 App. D. C. 102, 281 F. 606 ; Lynch v. Headley et al., 52 App. D.

14-20 967

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Feb 22, 2018

. §§ 4.40, 4.45 (2017); DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011). … Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Although interest may affect the credibility of testimony, it does not affect competency to testify. Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.

14-34 351

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 13, 2021

See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). … See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59; DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995).

Mary Reese v. Department of the Navy

2025 MSPB 1 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jan 31, 2025

¶30 In Edwards v. … Young v. Department of Homeland Security, 2024 MSPB 18, ¶ 30; Elder v.

Middlebrook v. Commissioner

13 T.C. 385 · United States Tax Court · Sep 27, 1949

Brown in a partnership doing business as Metropolitan Buick Co. … Commissioner v. Tower, 327 U. S. 280 ; Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U. S. 733 .

200916-109557

Board of Veterans' Appeals · May 28, 2021

The legal standard for proving a claim is not lowered; rather, the Board's obligation to discuss and evaluate evidence is heightened. See Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46 (1996). … See Ussery v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 64 (1995).

In re Johnston

502 F.2d 765 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 19, 1974

Accordingly, we cannot sustain the board’s rejection on its stated grounds. … Additionally, the solicitor argues that the holding in the recent opinion of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v.

Monster Energy Company v. Critical Role, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Nov 21, 2023

P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).

Louisiana & A. R. Co. v. Commissioner

28 B.T.A. 153 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 23, 1933

refund is not part of the deficiency and not within the jurisdiction of the Board, Joseph, P. … When, therefore, it becomes necessary to consider the scope of the system of jurisprudence as to transferee liability, set up for the first time in the Revenue Act of 1926, section 280 et seq., Phillips v.

B-S-H

29 I. & N. Dec. 313 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Nov 19, 2025

See INA § 240A(b)(2)(A)(i), (v), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i), (v). In November 2024, the respondent filed the instant motion. II. … See Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. 1, 8 (2019) (noting that when interpreting a statute, the Court focuses on the language of the statute); see also Bostock v.

SIPUS

14 I. & N. Dec. 229 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1972

INS, 400 F.2d 675 (CA. 9, 1968); Kwan Shick Myung v. INS, 368 F.2d 330 (C.A. 7, 1966). … "technical inadequacy" (as the Board opinion puts it).

Red Bobtail Transportation

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jun 11, 2024

A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction presents a threshold challenge to the Board’s jurisdiction while a merits challenge has res judicata effect. See Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. … Booth v. United States, 990 F.2d 617, 620-21 (Fed.

191120-44792

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 31, 2020

Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). … Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994).

O'Hare v. United States

109 F. Supp. 715 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 13, 1953

Plaintiff contends, as in McCormick v. United States, C. Cls. No. 364-52, ante, p. 111, that his claim did not arise until June 27, 1951, when the Railroad Retirement Board finally denied him relief. … See also Wheeler v. United States, C. Cls. No. 74-52, decided December 2,1952. The fact situation alleged in the instant case differs in one respect from that in McCormick v. United States, supra.

Carter v. United States

518 F.2d 1199 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 25, 1975

General Electric Co. v. United States, 189 Ct. Cl. 116, 117 , 416 F. 2d 1320, 1321 (1969). We have done so. Defendant makes much of our error in citing Department of Defense Eegulations, 24 Fed. … At the opening of the board proceeding, the Senior Board Member (presiding) is to address the respondent in part as follows: * * * You have been selected to “Show Cause,” because in the opinion of a board of senior Air Force