Case law

Application of Williams

171 F.2d 319 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1948

Thus, in the so-called aspirin case — Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co. v. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed.

Otis v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 21, 2025

“Congress has given the military secretaries the power to correct military records using civilian Corrections Boards.” Richey v. United States, 322 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. … An aggrieved service member, however, need not exhaust his administrative remedies by appealing to a military review board. Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed.

Fessenden v. Wilson

48 F.2d 422 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1931

Ed. 161 ; Beach v. Fowler, 1889 C. D. 187; Carty v. Kellogg, 7 *424 App. D. C. 542, 1896 C. D. 188; Hien v. Pungs, 1894 C. D. 92. … With respect to the diligence of Fessenden, we agree with the conclusion of the Board.

In Re Nicolson

49 F.2d 961 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1931

Slattery v. Lamer, 36 F.(2d) 298 ,17 C. C. P. A. 725. … Tracy v. Leslie, 14 App. D. C. 126; Podlesak v. McInnerney, 26 App. D. C. 399. In the case of Brogden v. Slater, 40 F. (2) 988, 989, 17 C. C. P.

Rominger v. United States

72 Fed. Cl. 268 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 20, 2006

Kirwin v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 497, 502 (1991) (citing de Cicco v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 224 , 677 F.2d 66, 70 (1982)). See also Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1986); Heisig v. … In this connection, the court will not re-weigh the evidence or sit as a “super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 322 , 594 F.2d 824, 830 (1979).

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company v. The United States

444 F.2d 547 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1971

United States v. Gurney, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch.) 333, 2 L.Ed. 638 (1808); Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213 , 6 L.Ed. 606 (1827); Bradley v. … Singer-General Precision, Inc. v. United States, 427 F.2d 1187, 1193 , 192 Ct.Cl. 435, 446-447 (1970); Sturm, supra; L. Rosenman Corp. v. United States, 390 F.2d 711, 714 , 182 Ct.Cl. 586, 590 (1968); Jack Stone Co. v.

The Scotch Whisky Association Ltd. v. ASW Distillery, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Feb 16, 2021

Scotch Whiskey Ass’n v. U.S. Distilled Prods. Co., 952 F.2d 1317, 21 USPQ2d 1145, 1146-7 (Fed. … Inc. v. RStudio Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1827 n.2 (TTAB 2013).

Burnett Electronics Lab., Inc. v. United States

479 F.2d 1329 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1973

This claim, not within the Board’s jurisdiction (and not made before the Board), is entitled to a full, sometimes called de novo, hearing in which, however, any relevant findings of the Board are binding. … United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 412-13, 418-19 (1966). The parties are in agreement that this claim may be decided on the record made before the Board.

William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. United States

72 Ct. Cl. 146 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 13, 1931

Central Union Trust Co. of New York v. Edwards, 282 Fed. 1008 ; Wisconsin Central Ry. Co. v. United States, 70 C. Cls. 203 . … King v. United States, 37 C. Cls. 428 ; Burton Coal Co. v. United States, 60 C. Cls. 294 ; Standard Dredging Co. v. United States, 71 C. Cls. 218 .

United States v. Swedish Produce Co.

4 Ct. Cust. 223 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1913

United States v. Benjamin et al. ( 72 Fed., 51 ); Gillespie et al. v. United States ( 124 Fed., 106 ). … See also Morimura Bros. v. United States ( 160 Fed., 280 ); Lawder & Sons v. Stone ( 125 Fed., 809 ); Roebling et al. v. United States ( 77 Fed., 601 ).

Scroggins v. United States

397 F.2d 295 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 14, 1968

The Board of Appeals and Keview, as well as the Commissioners, had before them Dr. … This is an issue which could have been, but was not, presented to the Board of Appeals and Review and to the Commissioners. Under Pine v. United States, 178 Ct.

American Continental Corp. v. United States

22 Cl. Ct. 692 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 22, 1991

See, e.g., Fahey v. … V.

McBlair v. United States

19 Ct. Cl. 528 · United States Court of Claims · May 19, 1884

(The People v. … Att’y Gen., 603; 14 Stat., 92; Mimmack v. United States, U. S. R., 437.)

Bendix Aviation Corporation v. Ardor Manufacturing Company, Inc.

331 F.2d 903 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1964

On reconsideration the board added: “Upon a review of the record in this proceeding, the Board remains of the opinion that the sale of the products of the parties under the surname ‘BENDIX’ and the suggestive term ‘BENDIT … See In re General Electric Co., 304 F.2d 688 , 49 CCPA 1186 (“Vulcan” v. “Vulkene”), and Lever Bros. Co. v. Producers Chemical Service, 283 F.2d 879 , 48 CCPA 744 (“Lux” v. “Shux”).

RAMOS

23 I. & N. Dec. 336 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2002

Concurring Opinions: FILPPU, Board Member; PAULEY, Board Member, joined by SCIALABBA, Acting Chairman. … See Tapia Garcia v. INS, 237 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2001) (deferring to the Board’s interpretation of the statute because it is reasonable); Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 1999) (same).

Higgs v. Commissioner

12 T.C. 280 · United States Tax Court · Mar 2, 1949

Under comparable facts an analogous problem arose in Brown v. Routzahn , 63 Fed. (2d) 914 ; certiorari denied, 290 U.S. 641 . … The reasoning of the court in Brown v.

09-07 786

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Oct 30, 2015

See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a grant of service connection extinguishes appeals before the Board). … See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993).

Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 328 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1916

In Krusi v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 168 -169; T. … See also Knauth v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 178 ; T. D. 31216), United States v. Brewing Co. ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 362 ; T. D. 31454), and United States v. Strauss Bros. & Co. ( 136 Fed., 185 ). In Shallus v.

Universal Overall Company v. Stonecutter Mills Corporation

310 F.2d 952 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1962

See: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, [ 333 U.S. 591 , 68 S.Ct. 715 , 92 L.Ed. 898 ], 77 U.S.P.Q. 29 * * *; American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. … On the basis of the ■ record and the arguments before us we think the board erred. Applying the principles set out in *956 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.

George Hyman Construction Co. v. United States

564 F.2d 939 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 19, 1977

However, a Board’s interpretation of a contract will be given careful consideration and accorded great respect. See Dale Ingram, Inc. v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 56 , 475 F.2d 1177 (1973); and Winston Brothers Co. v. … See Merando, Inc. v. United States, supra; Space Corp. v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 1, 5 , 470 F.2d 536, 538 (1972); Bishop Engineering Co. v. United States, 180 Ct.