Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.62s
Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 31, 2020
See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). … Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 465.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedBoard of Veterans' Appeals · Jan 31, 2020
Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 330, 333-34 (1997); Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994). … KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board William Pagan, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedClyde W. Beal v. Office of Personnel Management
2015 MSPB 17 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Feb 23, 2015
Garcia v. Department of Agriculture, 110 M.S.P.R. 371, ¶ 12 (2009) (decisions of the Federal Circuit are controlling authority for the Board). … Hillen v.
Cited 0 timesPublished20 I. & N. Dec. 238 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1991
Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149 3 See Wehling v. … Bilokumsky v.
Cited 38 timesPublishedChurchill Chemical Corp. v. United States
602 F.2d 358 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 18, 1979
See, e.g., Artisan Electronics Corp. v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 126, 134 , 499 F.2d 606, 611 (1974); DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 979, 991 ; 413 F.2d 1147, 1154 (1969); Radiation Technology, Inc. v. … Co. v. United States, 168 Ct. Cl. 873 (1964).
Cited 15 timesPublished130 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.
Cited 1 timesPublishedOmega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.) v. Alpha Phi Omega
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Mar 31, 2016
Toro Co., 61 USPQ2d at 1174; see also National Pork Board v. … See Ferro Corp. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOmega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.) v. Alpha Phi Omega
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Mar 31, 2016
Toro Co., 61 USPQ2d at 1174; see also National Pork Board v. … See Ferro Corp. v.
Cited 0 timesPublished138 F. Supp. 244 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1956
Love v. United States, 119 C. Cls. 486 . *579 The First U. S. … During the period from May 1, 1952, when plaintiff was separated from his position as rating specialist (legal), to July 14, 1952, the Boston regional office retained Emlyn V.
Cited 6 timesPublished7 Ct. Cust. 56 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1916
The board relied in its decision upon the case of Robinson v. United States ( 122 Fed., 970 ). … See American Bead Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 459 ; T. D. 35001). The decision of the board is reversed.
Cited 3 timesPublished493 F.2d 1389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1974
The board affirmed this rejection. In support of the affirmance, the board’s opinion cites and discusses the following twelve cases: 1. Louis De Jonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co., 182 F. 150 (C.C.S. … In Mazer v.
Cited 12 timesPublishedBoard of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 31, 2015
See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993). … See Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedColgate-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.
Cited 11 timesPublished3 Vet. App. 486 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 18, 1992
If such material could be determinative of the claim and was not considered by the Board, a remand for readju-dication would be in order. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 611, 613 (1992). … Therefore, the Court holds, as a matter of law, that the CAT scan counter-designated by appellant was “before the Secretary and the Board” when the Board decision was made. 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (b) (formerly § 4052); Bell, 2
Cited 8 timesPublishedFranklin A. Green v. Denis McDonough
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 19, 2024
A Board decision is not evidence. Hime v. … In my view, the Board was without jurisdiction to address entitlement to TDIU. In Rice v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 26, 2022
Van Cleave v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 674, 679 (2006). “When reviewing the decisions of the [reviewing board] under the arbitrary and capricious standard, the scope of review is extremely narrow.” Champagne v. … Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The Court does not serve as a “super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 322, 327, 594 F.2d 824 (1979).
Cited 0 timesPublished3 Ct. Cust. 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912
Limitations of this kind were defined by this court in the recent case of Lazarus, Rosenfeld & Lehmann v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 508 ; T. D. 32247). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is accordingly modified.
Cited 11 timesPublishedUnicon Management Corporation v. The United States
375 F.2d 804 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1967
See Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc. v. United States, 361 F.2d 222, 228 , 175 Ct.Cl. 527, 536 (1966). … Co. v. United States, 161 Ct.Cl. 1, 7 , 314 F.2d 501 , 504 (1963); Jefferson Constr. Co. v.
Cited 16 timesPublishedBoard of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2021
As any tribunal must do, the Board must ensure that it has jurisdiction over each case before adjudicating the merits. Barrera v. Gober, 122 F.3d 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. … CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. L. Park, Associate Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedAce Construction Company, a Corporation v. The United States
401 F.2d 816 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 18, 1968
It is well settled that an issue not raised before the Board cannot be raised for the first time before this court. Beaconwear Clothing Co. v. … Co. v. United States, 348 F.2d 968 , 172 Ct.Cl. 560 (1965) ; cf. Perini Corp. v. United States, 381 F.2d 403 , 180 Ct.Cl. 768 (1967). 9 . See Norfolk Dredging Co. v.
Cited 11 timesPublished
Ask Donna