Case law

D. Moody & Co. v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,390 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 4, 1984

In Placeway Construction Corp. v. … Gregory Lumber Co. v.

PIERRE

14 I. & N. Dec. 467 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1973

Glavic v. Beeehie, 225 F. Supp. 24, 27 (S.D. … Neither the immigration judge nor this Board is empowered to grant parole pursuant to section 212(dX5) of the Act, Matter of Conceiro, Interim Decision No. 2183 (BIA 1973), affd Conceiro v. Marks, 360 F.

Princeton Equity Group LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 6, 2025

Westlaw (WL) citations are used for Board decisions. Unless expressly noted, only precedential Board decisions will be cited. … In particular, the Court in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) approvingly quoted Tolbert v.

L. Rosenman Corporation v. The United States

390 F.2d 711 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 16, 1968

Upon appeal, the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (hereafter referred to as the “Board”) divided evenly on the question of liability. 1 Nevertheless, the members of the Board unanimously agreed that … Proceedings here will have to be suspended so that the parties can return to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals for determination of the amount due plaintiff. United States v.

BOWE

17 I. & N. Dec. 488 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1981

Board Member Maguire, Concurring; Board Member Appleman, Dissenting. … This Board began diluting such requirements in a line of cases which prompted the Second. Circuit to hold in Francis v.

95-42 539

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Oct 30, 2015

The development was completed, and the appeal was returned to the Board for appellate review. During the pendency of the appeal, the Court held in Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. … A veteran has a right to request a hearing before the issuance of a Board decision. Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.

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.

Pengilly v. Copeland

40 F.2d 995 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1930

We agree with the Board that there is no evidence to sustain the contention that Copeland should be held to have suppressed or concealed the invention under the doctrine of Mason v. Hepburn, 1898 C. D. 510, 84 O. … Steubing v. Hennessy, 50 App. D. C. 203, 269 F. 719 , and cases therein cited.

97-07 964

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jan 13, 2011

Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997). … Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 507 (1995).

Titan Pacific Construction Corp. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,693 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 18, 1989

Co. v. United States, 149 Ct.Cl. 514, 518 (1960). . Sundstrand Turbo v. United States, 389 F.2d at 422-23 ; Jefferson Constr. Co. of Florida v. … Koppers Co. v. United States, 405 F.2d at 558 . . Koppers Co. v. United States, 405 F.2d at 558 . . Id. at 559 . . Id. at 559 . . George Hyman Constr. Co. v.

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).

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

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Aug 29, 2016

See Perry v. … Swatch AG v.

07-24 353

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Nov 30, 2015

See Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc). A. … See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 262 (1994).

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.

Moscahlades Bros., Inc. v. United States

39 Cust. Ct. 127 · United States Customs Court · Sep 26, 1957

Akeroyd & Co. et al. v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 440 , T. D. 42641. … United States v. Julius Wile Sons & Co., 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 267.

Carver v. United States

27 F. Supp. 608 · United States Court of Claims · May 29, 1939

Co. v. United States, 72 C. Cls. 663, 669 , we held following the cases of Ohio Steel Foundry Co. v. United States, 69 C. Cls. 158 , and Arthur Curtiss James v. United States, 69 C. … As was said in Goodenough, Trustee, v. United States, 85 C.

Neuchatel Paving Co. v. District of Columbia

17 Ct. Cl. 386 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1881

In Barnes v. District of Columbia ( 91 U. S. … If we had any doubt on this point, we should consider it settled by the Supreme Court of the United States in the recent' case of Clark v. United States ( 95 U. S. R., 539 ), which was decided on appeal from this court.

Antonio Pacheco v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 413 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 16, 2014

Pacheco is entitled to an effective date of May 11, 2001, and the Board's decision must be reversed. See Gutierrez v. … . § 7111(e) (stating that a request for revision of a Board decision based on CUE shall be submitted directly to the Board); Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed.

Seminole Tribe of Florida

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · May 25, 2023

Servs. v. Labor Force, Inc., 870 F.2d 1563, 10 USPQ2d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989); A&H Sportswear Co. v. … Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

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.