Case law

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

In re Glavas

230 F.2d 447 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1956

[Citing Imperial Glass Co. v. A. H. Husey & Co., 294 F. 267 .] … As was pointed out in Northrup v. Adams, 1877 C. D. 322, 12 O. G. 430 , the painting “upon a familiar vase of a copy of Stuart’s portrait of Washington” would not be patentable.

Finn v. United States

548 F.2d 340 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 26, 1971

This board recommended a 50 percent disability rating. … Unterberg v. United States, supra; Merson v. United States, supra; Stephens v. United States, supra.

Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. The United States

439 F.2d 185 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 19, 1971

Corp. v. United States, 162 F.Supp. 772 , 776, 142 Ct.Cl. 609, 616 (1958). … See United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 , 86 S.Ct. 1545 , 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966); Paccon, Inc. v. United States, 399 F.2d 162, 168-169 , 185 Ct.Cl. 24, 35 (1968); Chaney & James Constr. Co. v.

Getzoff v. United States

109 F. Supp. 712 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 13, 1953

Under our decisions in Lezin v. United States, 120 C. Cls. 724 , 98 F. Supp. 574 ; Jackson v. United States, 121 C. Cls. 405 ; and Mendez v. United States, 119 C. … Neither the case of Garcia v. United States, No. 50459, decided December 2, 1952, nor Wheeler v. United States, No. 74-52, decided December 2, 1952, involve the point discussed above.

Industrial Nucleonics Corporation v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company

328 F.2d 942 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1964

We agree with the board that the marks “AccuRay” and “AccuData” do not look alike nor, in our judgment, do *944 they have the same sound in pronunciation. … In resolving the issue here, we find much efficacy in the statement of this court in Warner-Hudnut, Inc. v.

Taylor v. Swingle

136 F.2d 914 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1943

appearing pro se) contends, as he contended below, that the tests referred to did not constitute reduction to practice but argues that if the court should hold otherwise then Taylor is estopped under the doctrine of Mason v. … view, Taylor has failed to establish reduction to practice prior to Swingle’s filing date, or diligence during the critical period, it is unnécessary to consider the matter of abandonment under the doctrine of the Mason v.

Frontline Support Solutions, LLC

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Apr 3, 2025

Winter v. FloorPro, Inc., 570 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. … Grp. v. United States, 104 F.3d 1321,1325 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

IBARRA-OBANDO

12 I. & N. Dec. 576 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1967

Pine v. … v.

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 .

CHEN

10 I. & N. Dec. 671 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1964

The crime of grand theft of which the respondent stands convicted, ante, involves moral turpitude (Matter of V–T--, 2 I. & N. Dec. 213 at 214). … It is not inconsistent with the prior precedent decision of this Board (Matter of V—, 7 I. & N. Dec. 577), relied on by the special inquiry officer.

Parker v. Commissioner

30 B.T.A. 342 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 10, 1934

In Reinecke v. … Nichols v. Coolidge, supra; Reinecke v. Northern Trust Co., supra; Levy's Estate v. Commissioner, supra. Reviewed by the Board. Judgment will ~be entered u/nder Bule 50, Sec. 302.