Case law

United States v. Glendinning, McLeish & Co.

12 Ct. Cust. 222 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1924

The importer filed petitions for review to a board of three general appraisers, pursuant to which the cases were argued before Board 1, which board, in accordance with its opinion, dated May 22, 1923, in each of the invoices … —United States v. Rappolt & Co. ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 21 ; T. D. 37846).

Tippett v. United States

98 Fed. Cl. 171 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 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.

14-24 924

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Apr 18, 2018

See Davis v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 209, 211 (1997); Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 71 (1997). … See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043-44 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Girault v. United States

130 F. Supp. 343 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1955

This finding was approved by the Surgeon General and the Adjutant General and by the Secretary of War’s Disability Review Board. In Spencer v. … United States, 102 F.Supp. 774 , 121 Ct.Cl. 558 , certiorari denied 344 U.S. 828 , 73 S.Ct. 29 , 97 L.Ed. 644 , and in Carlin v.

Key Chemicals, Inc. v. Kelite Chemicals Corp.

464 F.2d 1040 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 31, 1972

Corp. v. J. … See Breck, Inc. v. Armand Co., 42 CCPA 1099, 225 F. 2d 246 , 107 USPQ 8 (1955). The decision of the board is affirmed.. LaNe, J., concurs in the result. Reported at 162 USPQ 474 (1969).

Application of Adolph Wolfensperger

302 F.2d 950 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1962

is Thompson v. … In Vickery v.

Hugh S. Knowles v. George C. Tibbetts

347 F.2d 591 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1965

Lemmerman, 341 F.2d 110 , 52 CCPA 968, and Paivinen v. Sands, 339 F.2d 217 , 52 CCPA 906. … See Conner v. Joris, 241 F.2d 944 , 44 CCPA 772; Stewart v. Robinson, 55 F.2d 998 , 19 CCPA 953, and Globe-Union, Inc. v. Chicago Tel. Supply Co., 103 F.2d 722 (7th Cir. 1939).

Candelaria v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 266 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 26, 1984

The court observed: “In Gwin v. … The Correction Board was the forum plaintiff was in, and in which he had the burden to present evidence to support his disability claim. See Friedman v.

United States v. Jackson

1 Ct. Cust. 25 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1910

difference between the stones either as to texture, susceptibility to polish, or in the uses to which they might be applied, and inasmuch as the United States Circuit Court of Appeals had already decided in the case of Bockmann v. … Rep., 474); United States v. Edgar C. Riebe (T. D. 30766, supra, p. 19). As, however, the Board of General Appraisers evidently considered that Bockmann v.

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.

United States v. Walter

4 Ct. Cust. 95 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1913

The board sustained the protest. … United States v. Kwong Yuen Shing ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 14 ; T. D. 30773); Acker v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 328 ; T. D. 31431).

Mitchell v. Commissioner

45 B.T.A. 822 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 25, 1941

See Mitchell v. Commissioner, 118 Fed. (2d) 308. … Griffiths v. Commissioner, 50 Fed. (2) 782 [ 2 USTC ¶766 ].

Hendrick v. United States

150 Ct. Cl. 437 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 8, 1960

Register v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 98 . As a matter of fact, there is a strong presumption that the disability had its origin in line of duty. Moore v. United States, 48 Ct. Cl. 110 . … The board, after deliberating on the evidence, made the following recommended findings: (1) That Thomas Francis Hendrick, BMGC, V-6, TTSNR, #172 0012, be found unfit to perform the duties of his rate by reason of physical

Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc. v. The United States

345 F.2d 808 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1965

(as the Board held). … Langenfelder & Sons, Inc. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 341 F.2d 600 , February 19, 1965, H. B. Zachry Co. v.

200716-97946

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 31, 2021

Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995). … See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994).

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.

United States v. Gavin

23 C.C.P.A. 288 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1936

The trial court, in an opinion by Judge Brown, stated that “No commercial designation to the contrary is made out, though attempted”. … The importer on this phase of the case cites and discusses Clickman v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 151 , T. D. 38946.

Esposito v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 334 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

—United States v. Riebe ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 19 ; T. D. 30776). … The j udgmént of the board is therefore affirmed.

Waggoner v. Commissioner

9 B.T.A. 629 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 17, 1927

See, also, Davis v. Fant (Tex. Civ. App.) 93 S. W. 193 ; Leonard v. King (Tex. Civ. App.) 164 S. W. 1110 ; Jones v. Taylor 7 Tex. 240 ; Roos v. Thigpen (Tex. Civ. App.) 140 S. W. 1180 ; Duniven v. Turner (Tex. Civ. … W. 267 ; Mathews v. Caldwell (Tex. Civ. App.) 258 S. W. 810 .

Syracuse Food Products Corp. v. Commissioner

21 B.T.A. 865 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 23, 1930

Johnson v. United States, 44 Fed. (2d) 244. … The witness Brown, called by the petitioner and admitted by the respondent to be a highly qualified patent attorney, testified that the Merrell-Merrell-Gere process patent could not be operated by other than the owner of