Case law

Kingsley v. United States

172 Ct. Cl. 549 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1965

whether a claim accrued upon final action of the Correction Board, was as follows: In Patterson v. … Nichols v. United States, 158 Ct. Cl. 412 . In Hoen v. United States, 157 Ct.

Van Dorn Iron Works Co. v. United States

13 F. Supp. 758 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 2, 1936

court in Old Colony Trust Co. v. … The other cases cited by the defendant, Ohio Steel Foundry Co. v. United States (Ct.Cl.) 38 F.(2d) 144 ; James v. United States (Ct.Cl.) 38 F.(2d) 140 ; James et al. v.

C-C

23 I. & N. Dec. 899 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2006

Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2004), distinguished. FOR RESPONDENT: Peter D. Lobel, Esquire, New York, New York BEFORE: Board Panel: COLE, FILPPU, and PAULEY, Board Members. … Wang v.

Taylor-Tillotson v. United States

115 Fed. Cl. 800 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 2, 2014

See Holmes v. United States,98 Fed. Cl. 767,780 (201l) (citing Chambers v. United States,4lT F.3d,1218, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2005), ar,d Godwin v. united states,338 F.3d 1374, t378 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). … See Gossage v. United States,91 Fed. CL 10l, 106 (2010) (citing Bannum, Inc. v. United States,404 F.3d 1346 1357(Fed. Cir.2005)).

Orangeburg Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner

37 T.C. 251 · United States Tax Court · Nov 21, 1961

V, subpt. II, (F) (1) and (2) (pp. 120-1). … Petitioner refers, to the Supreme Court decision in 1938 in Electric Bond Co. v.

United States v. Holland-American Trading Co.

4 Ct. Cust. 336 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

Free acid as oleic. 22.13 Volatile petroleum. 5.37 Unsaponifiable oil (petroleum). 12.15 Saponifiable fat. 10. 32 Silica. 40. 25 Alumina and iron oxide. 5.25 Moisture. 2. 82 Lime, etc. 1.71 United States v. … D. 32536) and Bartley Brothers v. United States (ib., 363) seem to preclude the correctness of the collector’s classification and are referred to for authority and reasoning on that subject.

Cayce v. United States

170 Ct. Cl. 402 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1965

Lipp v. United States, 373 U.S. 932 (1963). A Retiring Board was therefore available to plaintiff in November 1946. … See, e.g., Friedman v. United States, supra; Hoppock v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 87 (1963). The presence or absence of a Disposition Board (or like board) is immaterial. The defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.

06-03 199

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 4, 2015

See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993); Sutton v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 533 (1996); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.1102 (2015) (harmless error). … See Smith v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40, 45 (2010) (citing Crowe v. Brown, 7 Vet.

Loeb v. United States

133 Ct. Cl. 937 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1956

Opinion per curiam: In all material aspects this case is identical with Gapps v. United States, No. 50425, decided this date, ante p. 811. … The report of the V. A. examination of June 27,1946, is as follows: Chief Complaints. — The patient states he cannot run because of pain in the right heel due to fracture of the right os calcis in August 1942.

Moss v. United States

101 Fed. Cl. 611 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 8, 2011

Plaintiffs burden is to show by “ ‘cogent and clearly convincing evidence’ ” that the decision of the board fails this standard. Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1986) (quoting Dorl v. … However, “ “when a correction board fails to correct an injustice clearly presented in the record before it, it is acting in violation of its mandate.’ ” Roth v.

Nickell v. United States

123 Ct. Cl. 859 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1952

He appeared before an Army Retiring Board on February 21, 1947. … The issues involved in this case from April 8 to September 29,1948, are identical with those involved in the case of Ramsey v. United States, No. 50325, ante, p. 504.

Los Angeles Trading Co. v. United States

1 Cust. Ct. 264 · United States Customs Court · Nov 30, 1938

This case arose by reason of the decision and judgment of this court, in Los Angeles Trading Co. v. United States, T. D. 47507, 67 Treas. Dec. 195 , relating to protest 410767-G. … I concur in Judge Brown’s conclusion, but have written the foregoing opinion for the sake of clarity.

Jacobs v. International Multifoods Corp.

668 F.2d 1234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 21, 1982

(Duet v. Duvet); In re Ferrero, 479 F.2d 1395, 1397 , 178 USPQ 167, 168 (CCPA 1973) (Tic Tac Toe v. Tic Tac); Dan River Mills, Inc. v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Compare James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., 540 F.2d 266 , 192 USPQ 555 (7th Cir. 1976), and Beef/Eater Restaurants, Inc. v.

11-29 220

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Apr 29, 2016

In June 2015, the Board remanded the case for further development. There has been substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). … App. 1, 10 (2001); Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88 (1996). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1.

Bahram Malikzada Construction Co.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Oct 8, 2015

Cosmic Construction Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389, 1390 (Fed. … Bonneville Associates v. United States, 43 F.3d 649, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

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.

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.

Loftin v. Smith

126 F.2d 514 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1942

The Examiner of Interferences on this phase of the law cited Funk v. Haines and Matteson, 20 App. D. C. 285. … There is no contention here that the Smith application related to an abandoned experiment nor is' the rule akin to the doctrine of estoppel applicable in Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D. C. 86, urged.

09-05 380

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 27, 2015

See Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 540, 546 (1991); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). … Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994).

In re Bradley

600 F.2d 807 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 5, 1979

The Rejection The examiner rejected the appealed claims on the authority of Gottschalk v. … Under the ruling in Gottschalk v.