Case law

William R. Campbell v. Department of the Army

2016 MSPB 38 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Nov 2, 2016

See Crosby v. U.S. … Id.; see Runstrom v.

Lsi Service Corporation v. United States

422 F.2d 1334 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 20, 1970

Sundstrand Turbo v. United States, 182 Ct.Cl. 31, 60 , 389 F.2d 406, 422-423 (1968). … See Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 358 , 393 F.2d 807 (1968).

Johnston v. United States

157 Ct. Cl. 474 · United States Court of Claims · May 9, 1962

O'Brien v. United States, 124 Ct. Cl. 655 ; Holliday v. United States, 128 Ct. Cl. 647 ; Prichard v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 212 ; Towell v. United States, 150 Ct. Cl. 422 ; Robert L. Thompson v. … See McEaddy v. United States, 152 Ct. Cl. 311 .

Chisolm v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 185 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2008

requests should be considered by the board. … Whatever the rule of accrual might be in APA challenges to board decisions, such challenges are in any event not within our jurisdiction. Id. at 1313 (citing Murphy v.

In re Davis

123 F.2d 651 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1941

The leading case upon this subject is that of Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Company, 151 U. … novelty of the claim before us resides in the order of mixing the ingredients. ' There can be no doubt that the claims of the patent and the claim before us are for separate inventions; but under the rule laid down in Miller v.

In re Simulations Publications, Inc.

521 F.2d 797 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 11, 1975

We agree with appellant that the examiner and the board properly referred to a standard dictionary to determine the ordinary significance and meaning of the words in issue. Hancock v. … Meyer Chemical Co. v. Anahist Co., 263 F.2d 344 , 46 CCPA 784 (1959).

Straus v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 414 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1917

It appears that in Loeb et al. v. … See Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 128 ; T. D. 35389) and United States v. Sheldon & Co., supra.

08-26 047

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 29, 2014

See Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F. 3d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Jones v. West, 146 F. 3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 1998). … Brown, 6 Vet. App. 483 (1994).

MySpace, Inc. v. Donnell Mitchell

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · May 11, 2009

v. Donnell Mitchell Before Seeherman, Rogers and Taylor, Administrative Trademark Judges. … plaintiff’s counsel, in direct violation of the Board’s order.

Witex, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States

577 F. Supp. 2d 1353 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 18, 2008

United States v. Mead, 533 U.S. 218, 235 (2001) (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944)). … See Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 22 CIT 797, 800, 17 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1011 (1998), S.I. Studd, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 661, 666 (1993), aff’d, 24 F.3d 1394 (1994).

Lane v. West

11 Vet. App. 506 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 15, 1998

Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 , 96 S.Ct. 2119 , 48 L.Ed.2d 726 (1976). … American Broadcasting Co. v.

Clarke v. Commissioner

22 B.T.A. 314 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 24, 1931

V. … V.

SHAAR

21 I. & N. Dec. 541 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1996

Yamataya v. … The principle that deportation statutes should be construed in the alien’s favor is a longstanding one, recognized, adopted, and reiterated by this Board. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987); Fong Haw Tan v.

Schaper v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 430 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 26, 1991

The appellant cites International Paper Co. v. Whitson, 595 F.2d 559 (10th Cir.1979); United States v. Vallejo, 660 F.Supp. 535 (W.D.Wash.1987); and United States v. Whitney, 602 F.Supp. 722 (W.D.N.Y.1985). … In Smith v.

Zakon v. Commissioner

7 B.T.A. 687 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 22, 1927

See Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U. … United States v. Flannery, 268 U. S. 98 ; 5 Am. Fed. Tax Rep. 5373; McCaughn v. Ludington, 268 U. S. 106 ; 5 Am. Fed. Tax Rep. 5376. The license cost the petitioner $11,000 in 1911.

Turner & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 48 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1924

See also United States v. Fondeville ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 135 ; T. D. 36457); True Fit Waterproof Co. v. United States (id. 489; T. D. 37107); Field & Co. v. United States (id. 332; T. D. 36876); Calhoun v. … In the case of United States v.

In re Hornsey

48 F.2d 911 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1931

The board sustained the examiner in holding that “ there is no invention in substituting the reduction step of Stansfield in the process of Rendall,” and the board states further that:. … (Patents) 568, 34 F. (2d) 1012; and Line Material Co. v. Brady Elec. & Mfg. Co., 299 Fed. 824 .

Maine Central Railroad v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 411 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1927

On the question of commercial designation, the board found as follows: That lambs are generally bought and sold as such. … Central Commercial Co. et al. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 131 ; United States v. Beadenkopf Co. et al., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 283 .

Wolf v. United States

168 Ct. Cl. 24 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 13, 1964

Andrews v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 126 (1963). … Hordechuck v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 492 . We think the decision of the Correction Board and the Secretary was arbitrary and not supported by the evidence.

United States v. Yamashita

1 Ct. Cust. 341 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1911

State v. … See also Leisy v. Hardin ( 135 U. S., 110 ); Commonwealth v. Schol-lenberger (27 Atl. Rep., Pa., 30); Haley v. State (60 N. W., Nebr., 362).