Case law

In re Carleton

599 F.2d 1021 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 7, 1979

As the Second Circuit said in Scher-ing Corp. v. … The Solicitor’s brief states that “the issue is whether the decision of the Board of Appeals was clearly erroneous.” However, “obviousness is a legal conclusion based on factual evidence, Graham v.

Philip M. Modeste v. Department of Veterans Affairs

2014 MSPB 44 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jun 19, 2014

Gingery v. … . § 3330c ; Deems 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.

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).

Jefferson Construction Co. Of Florida, a Florida Corporation v. The United States

364 F.2d 420 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1966

Bank of Atlanta v. United States, 98 Ct.Cl. 256, 280 (1943); Jefferson Construction Co. v. … Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v.

Shallus Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 87 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1925

In United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 412 , T. … In this connection see also United States v. Dieckerhoff, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384 , T. D. 33796; United States v. Wolff & Co., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 418, T. D. 34943; and Morris, Mann & Reilly (Inc.) 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).

Reitz v. Commissioner

61 T.C. 443 · United States Tax Court · Jan 9, 1974

Petitioners entered into no binding contract of sale which would allow us to attribute beneficial ownership of the stock to the board on the day the dividend was declared. See Moore v. Commissioner, supra; DeGuire v. … The record contains no evidence that the 'board participated in the decision to declare a dividend. See Miller v. Commissioner, supra.

Landicho v. Principi

4 Vet. App. 96 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 19, 1993

If the evidence is new and material, the Board must then review the new evidence “in the context of” the old to determine whether the prior disposition of the claim should be altered. See Jones (McArthur) v. … Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 248, 255-56 (1992) (Board’s failure to consider individual unemployability required remand); Mingo v.

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

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Aug 29, 2016

See Perry v. … Swatch AG 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.

In Re FISCHER

58 F.2d 1058 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1932

He argues that the said application discloses the feature heretofore referred to, of two sheets with their adhesive surfaces in contact, and that he is, under the rule of Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126 , 40 S. … D. 32, in whjeh the office announced the rule, based upon Field v. Colman, 40 App. D.

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).

Alfred Electronics v. Alford Manufacturing Company

333 F.2d 912 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 9, 1964

In connection with that point, the board cited its previous decision in Lytle Engineering & Mfg. Co., 125 U.S.P.Q. 308 . Appellant questions that ruling, relying particularly on Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Minn. … Midwest Homes, Inc. v. Midwest Houses, Inc., 120 U.S.P.Q. 406 (Comr., 1959) ; Universal Overall Company v. Stonecutter Mills Corporation, 121 U.S.P.Q. 605 (Comr., 1959) ; and Zell Products Corporation v.

Application of Calgon Corporation

435 F.2d 596 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1971

The board did not agree with appellant, nor do we. As the board eorectly pointed out, “the question of priority of use is not germane to applicant’s right to register” in this ex parte proceeding. … See, by way of analogy, Erlen Products Co. v. The Toni Co., 251 F.2d 625 , 45 CCPA 769 (1958); Cosmetically Yours, Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 424 F.2d 1385 , 57 CCPA 1071 (1970), and cases cited therein.

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.

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.

ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 612 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2005

CAS Board guidance includes illustrations following the test of each regulation, CAS Board interpretations, and the CAS preambles to explain regulations in “non-technical” language. See Boeing Co. v. … (citing Tallman v. Brown, 105 F.3d 613, 616 (Fed.Cir.1997); Union Pac. Corp. v. United States, 5 F.3d 523, 526 (Fed.Cir.1993)).

United States v. Wertheimer & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 454 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 12, 1912

This court in previous almost identical cases has refused to disturb the findings of the Board of General Appraisers. In United States v. Spielmann ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 279 ; T. … D. 31320) the record consisted of the testimony of one witness and the exhibits, and this court refused to disturb the findings of the Board of General Appraisers thereupon. In United States v. Perkins ( 1 Ct. Cust.

John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United States

70 Cust. Ct. 80 · United States Customs Court · Mar 1, 1973

United States v. Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., 57 CCPA 102, C.A.D. 986 (1970). . . . … United States v.