Case law

Wasserman v. Commissioner

24 T.C. 1141 · United States Tax Court · Sep 29, 1955

In Michaels v. Donato, 67 A. 2d 911 (N. … As said by the court in Michaels v.

Louisiana & A. R. Co. v. Commissioner

28 B.T.A. 153 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 23, 1933

refund is not part of the deficiency and not within the jurisdiction of the Board, Joseph, P. … When, therefore, it becomes necessary to consider the scope of the system of jurisprudence as to transferee liability, set up for the first time in the Revenue Act of 1926, section 280 et seq., Phillips v.

Arab Shah Construction Company

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Aug 4, 2016

The Board docketed the appeal as ASBCA No. 60553. 8. … Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 811F.2d586, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Marlin v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 475 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 2005

Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.Cir.1997). … Wildman v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 494, 495 (1993) (citing Anderson v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 178 , 179 n. 2 (1990) aff'd, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.Cir.1991) (table)); Osborn v.

In re Freeman

573 F.2d 1237 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1978

The board reversed both rejections, and entered a new ground of rejection, as authorized by 37 CFR 196(b), rejecting all claims as directed to nonstatutory subject matter under the principles of Gottschalk v. … “Thus” said the board, “the instant case involves more than the mere practice of an algorithm or formula on data considered to be old and well known.” The solicitor contends that Graham v.

Carl F. Prutton v. Everett W. Fuller and Ellwood M. Johnson

230 F.2d 459 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1956

As was said in Lindley v. … . * * *” Similarly, in Bierly v.

11-28 444

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 31, 2014

Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204 (1994). … DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995).

Eric S. Powell v. United States Postal Service

2014 MSPB 89 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Dec 18, 2014

Miller v. … See Panter v.

Clifford v. United States

59 Fed. Cl. 440 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 2, 2004

Holley v. … The record shows that the board endeavored to do just that. The case of Ponce-Leiva v.

Application of Avedis Zildjian Co

394 F.2d 860 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 16, 1968

It follows that the decision of the board will be affirmed. Affirmed. . In re Avedis Zildjian Co., 147 USPQ 82 (TTAB 1965). . The Fred Gretsch Manufacturing Co. v. … Breon & Co., Inc. v. Abraham Aronovic, 33 USPQ 390 (1939).

Haggart v. United States

89 Fed. Cl. 523 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 28, 2009

See Moore v. … Armitage v.

Draeger v. Bradley

156 F.2d 64 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1946

Clark v. Birdsey, 56 App. D. C. 136, 1926 C. D. 199, 350 O. G. 687 , 10 F. (2d) 1001; Jardine and Jehle v. Long, 19 C. C. P. A. 1243, 1932 C. D. 493, 423 C. G. 933, 58 F. (2d) 836, 13 U. S. P. Q. 254. … , are now in any position which warrants their challenge of the correctness of the board’s finding.

Frederick C. Gazelle v. Robert A. McDonald

27 Vet. App. 461 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 2, 2016

Bradley v. … McNary v.

Strickland v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 689 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2004

As a matter of law, Congress and only Congress can authorize or limit “the range of cases” to be reviewed by the boards. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 132 , 96 S.Ct. 612 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (citing McCulloch v. … See, e.g., Renegotiation Board v.

Carlisle Chemical Works, Inc. v. Hardman & Holden Limited

434 F.2d 1403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1970

In Formica Corp. v. … Co. v. J. C. Dowd & Co., 178 F. 73 (2nd Cir. 1910). For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the board is reversed. Reversed. 1 . Serial No. 221,175 filed June 15, 1965. 2 . Serial No. 221,174 filed June 15, 1965. 3 .

First Federal Lincoln Bank v. United States

60 Fed. Cl. 501 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2004

First Federal Lincoln Bank v. United States, 58 Fed. … The Federal Circuit’s Decisions in D & N Bank v. United States and Anderson v. United States In D & N Bank v.

David J. Tierney, Jr., Inc.

652 F.2d 69 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 13, 1981

If the contractor goes the board route, it can later appeal the board’s decision to the court. Section 8(g)(1) of the Act, 41 U.S.C. § 607 (Supp. II 1978). … of Contract Appeals to be consolidated with the case pending before that board in docket No. 5585, citing our order in Warwick Constr., Inc. v.

WRB Corp. v. United States

177 Ct. Cl. 909 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 16, 1966

Co. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 802, 807 , 337 F. 2d 861, 863 (1963). … Co. v. United States, supra, 162 Ct. Cl. at pages 806-808; WPC Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 1, 8 , 323 F. 2d 874, 878 (1963); Potter v. United States, 167 Ct.

Crocker v. United States

127 F. Supp. 568 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1955

Co. v. Mote, 1908, 131 Ga. *573 166, 62 S.E. 164, 170 . We think that the policy practiced at the Medical Center was arbitrary in the light of the circumstances in this case. 13 . Knotts v. … United States, supra, footnote 8; Levy v. United States, 118 Ct.Cl. 106 ; Gadsden v. United States, 78 F.Supp. 126 , 111 Ct.Cl. 487 . 14 . Plaintiff’s petition was filed on July 30, 1951.

The Haskell Company

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · May 5, 2026

Standard of Review Once jurisdiction has been challenged, appellant bears the burden of proving the Board’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exch. … In United States v. Turner Construction Co., 827 F.2d 1554, 1559 (Fed.