Case law

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.

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).

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.

Turnkey Enterprises, Inc. v. United States

597 F.2d 750 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 18, 1979

The court can differ from or agree with the Board in reading contract documents. Arundel Corp. v. United States, supra, 207 Ct. Cl. at 97 , 515 F.2d at 1123 ; United Contractors v. United States, 177 Ct. … Co. v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 925, 954 , 413 F.2d 1167, 1184-85 (1969); Dean Constr. Co. v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 62 , 74-75, 411 F.2d 1238, 1245 (1969). See also McKee v. United States, 205 Ct.

Dynalectron Corp.

199 Ct. Cl. 996 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 29, 1972

On the basis of the f oregoing, the court concludes that the decision of the Supreme Court in S & E Contractors, Inc. v. … United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966).

08-17 292

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 31, 2014

Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. … See Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337 (1996); Shipwash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 218, 227 (1995).

William E. Phillips v. Edward E. Lynch and John J. Larew

367 F.2d 601 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 27, 1966

There is general agreement as to the applicable rule of law as expressed by this court in Martin v. … And in Deibel v. Heise, 46 F.2d 570 , 18 CCPA 907 (1931): Had appellant desired to limit his claims to a particular kind or type of kraft paper he might have done so.

SALIM

18 I. & N. Dec. 311 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1982

See Rosenberg v. Woo, 402 U.S. 49 (1971). … See McMullen v. INS, supra; Kashani v. INS, 547 F.2d 376 (7 Cir. 1977); Stevie v.

HUANG

19 I. & N. Dec. 749 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1988

In Woodby v. … See Saxbe v. Bustos, supra.

Stamler v. Commissioner

40 B.T.A. 56 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 7, 1939

Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512 . To the same effect are Metropolitan etc. Trust Co. v. Perry, 194 Ill. App. 271 , and Citizens State Bank v. Joplin, 198 S. W. 370, 372 . … Warwick, 108 Fed. 46 ; Harman v. Helvering, 90 Fed. (2d) 622; George H. Harrian, 30 B. T.

In Re Hass

141 F.2d 127 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1944

See Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U.S. 1 ; In re Lincoln et al., 29 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 942, 126 F. (2d) 477, 53 USPQ 40 ; Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 , 51 USPQ 272 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Farrington v. Mikeska

155 F.2d 412 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1946

Thompson v. Dicke, 110 F.2d 98 , 27 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 931. … The decisions in the cases of Schweyer v. Thomas, 68 F.2d 953 , 21 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 859; Garand v. Pedersen, 76 F.2d 407 , 22 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1161; and Hogue v. Cowling et al., 101 F.2d 541 , 26 C.C.P.A.

Application of Walter D. Bernhart and William A. Fetter

417 F.2d 1395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1969

See, e. g., Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545 , 58 S.Ct. 662 , 82 L.Ed. 1008 (1938). Why an applicant should not be so entitled is not clear. … As to claims 8, 13 and 18 the decision of the board is affirmed; as to claims 19-21 the decision of the board is reversed. Modified. 1 .