Case law

190502-13959

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 31, 2020

The Board has also considered the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, and 4.59, and the holdings in DeLuca. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202. … DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59.

DE JESUS PLATON

29 I. & N. Dec. 7 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jan 17, 2025

The respondent also argues that the Board’s reliance on McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011), and United States v. Diaz, 838 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2016), is misplaced. In Velasquez-Rios v. … Nath v.

Darek J. Kitlinski v. Department of Justice

2015 MSPB 60 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Nov 16, 2015

Merit Systems Protection Board, 145 F.3d 1480, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Petersen v. Department of the Interior, 71 M.S.P.R. 227, 235-36 (1996). … Some Federal circuit courts of appeals had disagreed with the Board’s interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 4311(a) in this regard. See, e.g., Carder v.

United States v. Kalter Mercantile Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 540 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1923

In the case of Dow v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 249 ; T. … We think the decision of the board on both of these questions was correct and is sustained by the evidence in this case and the law as defined by this court. — Lai Ming et al. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust.

Tenney v. Nordmeyer

94 F.2d 396 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 7, 1938

C. 222; Carlin v. Goldberg, 45 App. D. C. 540; Field v. Colman, 47 App. D. C. 189; Headley & Thompson v. Bridges, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1331, 48 F. (2d) 938; American Cable Co., Inc., et al. v. John A. … In distinguishing that case from the case of Cosper v.

J. Wiss & Sons Co. v. W. E. Bassett Co.

462 F.2d 567 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1972

Bassett Co. v. H. C. Cook Co., 156 F. Supp. 209 , 115 USPQ 111 (D. Conn. 1957); W. E: Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc., 147 USPQ 309 (S.D. N.Y. 1965), aff'd 354 F. 2d 868 , 158 USPQ 170 (2d Cir. 1966). … Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 52 CCPA 981, 985, 340 F. 2d 960, 963 , 144 USPQ 435 , 438 (1965).

In re Lincoln

126 F.2d 477 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1942

See Schiller v. Robertson, 28 F. (2d) 301, and In re McNeil, 1902 O. … (Patents) 1140, 57 F. (2d) 365; Schiller v. Robertson, 28 F. (2d) 301; In re Grapp, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1042, 64 F. (2d) 376.

Goeppner v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 345 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 14, 1983

Quirk v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. at 782-83 ; Neumann v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. at 592 . … Quirk v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. at 783 ; Gentry v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 654 , 656 (1980).

Adams v. Commissioner

71 T.C. 477 · United States Tax Court · Dec 28, 1978

We are reminded of Judge Brown’s statement in Parr v. … Had the Treasury Department followed Judge Brown’s suggestion and replaced the “primary purpose” test of the regulation with the quid pro quo test set out in Johnson v.

05-39 724

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 3, 2011

See Duenas v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 512, 520 (2004). A layperson is generally not capable of opining on matters requiring medical knowledge. Routen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 183, 186 (1997); see also Bostain v. … See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994).

Application of Lawrence A. Heinle

342 F.2d 1001 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1965

(We note that these holdings as well as In re Sarett, supra, have all been subsequent to the board’s second opinion herein.) … Bloodhart v. Lever-nier, 64 F.2d 367 , 20 C.C.P.A., Patents, 917; [17 U.S.Pat.Q. 188;] Wiemer v. Coe, Comr.Pats., 45 USPQ 407 .”

In re Griffin Pollution Control Corp.

517 F.2d 1356 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1975

Restatement of Torts § 718, comment b at 573 (1938); Heintz v. American Tire Machinery Co., 54 USPQ 328 , 329 (Comm’r Pat.1942). … The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. Affirmed.

Osceola Mill & Elevator Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 139 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 16, 1921

. — Robertson v. Downing ( 127 U. S., 607 ); United States v. Healey ( 160 U. S., 136 ). … See Shallus v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 556 ; T. D. 31552) and cases cited; United States v. Myers ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 257 ; T. D. 31301); Komada v. United States ( 215 U. S., 392 ).

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.

Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., by Change of Name From Carter Products Inc.

432 F.2d 1400 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 12, 1970

The board’s response to this contention was that such inclusiveness did not ipso facto warrant a holding that the marks are confusingly similar, citing Murray Corporation of America v. … We think, however, the language employed by this court in Denney v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 263 F.2d 347 , 46 CCPA 790 (1959), bears relevance to the instant appeal.

Shunk Manufacturing Company v. Tarrant Manufacturing Company

318 F.2d 328 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1963

In our judgment, the record fairly supports the factual findings of the board. … In Pink Lady Corporation v. L. N.

French v. United States

42 Fed. Cl. 49 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 14, 1998

Judicial review of an administrative board decision is limited. See Ferrell v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 562, 567 (1991). … See Wood, 176 Ct.Cl. at 743 (“Absent convincing proof, [the court] will not impute bad faith or arbitrariness to that board.”); Furlong v.

Schmalstig v. Commissioner

43 B.T.A. 433 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 28, 1941

United States v. … Reviewed by the Board. Sec. 307.

Duffy v. Tegtmeyer

489 F.2d 745 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 10, 1974

In Losh-bough v. … That is likely to be the case here when the motion, which the chairman of the board, acting for the Commissioner, deferred to final hearing, is decided by the board. This question has been deemed ancillary to priority.

13-12 756

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2015

This latter provision was added as part of an amendment intended conform VA regulations to Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995), and also limited the circumstances in which VA would allow aggravation. See 71 Fed. … Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet.