Case law

Kyrides v. Andersen

121 F.2d 514 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 2, 1941

Blodgett and Hanson v. Richter, 79 F.2d 922 , 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 749; Ufer and Niemann v. Williams, 79 *517 F.2d 892, 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 797; Walsh et al. v. Davidson et al., supra. … Co. v. Pneumatic Scale Corporation, 1 Cir., 166 F. 288 , and cases therein reviewed. For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed.

Simms v. Commissioner

17 T.C. 1 · United States Tax Court · Jul 9, 1951

This Court has no power to re-try the facts or establish a conclusion different from that reached by the Board of Commissioners. Cf. the following: Randolph v. United States, 6 F. 2d 487 , certiorari denied 269 U. … C. 169 ; Waller v. United States, 180 F. 2d 194 ; Frye et al. v. United States, 72 F. Supp. 405 . The respondent’s determination is sustained. Decision will be entered for the respondent. SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

F-P-R

24 I. & N. Dec. 681 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2008

Marty, Esquire, Fullerton, California BEFORE: Board Panel: FILPPU, PAULEY, and HESS, Board Members. … Circuit in Joaquin-Porras v.

Girard Trust Co. v. Commissioner

41 B.T.A. 157 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 24, 1940

In Slee v. Commissioner (C. C. … In Slee v.

In re Ruff

256 F.2d 590 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1958

Butler Bros. v. Pratt, 253 F. 654, 656 (CCA-8), and cases there cited. … Co., Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.

Marcellus S. Hartman v. Anthony J. Principi

18 Vet. App. 432 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 19, 2004

Hartman v. Principi, No. 04-7035, 2004 WL 1178279 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2004). … The Secretary notes that the only case in which the Court had addressed this question was in its opinion in Huston v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 195 (2003), which was subsequently vacated by the Federal Circuit, Huston v.

In re Sebald

143 F.2d 366 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1944

Upon due consideration, and especially in view of the decision in Aronld v. Bishop et al., 1 Fed. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed as to both claims 8 and 13.

Clark v. United States

151 Ct. Cl. 601 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1960

Leonard v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 91 (1955) ; Fredrickson v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 890 (1956); and Williams v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 513 (1959). … In Fredrickson , this court, relying on Leonard v.

Stonecutter Mills Corporation v. Universal Overall Company, Universal Overall Company v. Stonecutter Mills Corporation

379 F.2d 979 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1967

Pedigree Fabrics, Inc., 161 F.2d 226 , 34 CCPA 1043, and Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. J. M. Wood Mfg. Co., Inc., 100 USPQ 256 (Comr.1954). … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

Moody

650 F.2d 290 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 15, 1980

Doyle v. United States and Adams v. United States, 220 Ct. Cl. 326 , 609 F. 2d 990 (1979). … Cl. 481 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1068 (1979); McGahey v. United States, 213 Ct. Cl. 717 (1977); Eurell v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 273 , 566 F. 2d 1146 (1977); Devine v. United States, 208 Ct.

McCabe v. Cramblet

65 F.2d 459 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1933

We may add that Field v. Stow, supra, was cited with approval in the case of Atherton v. Payne, 19 C. C. P. A. … Brogden v. Slater, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1240, 40 F. (2d) 988. For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In Re Bager

47 F.2d 951 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

Brill v. Third Ave. R. Co. (C. C.) 103 F. 289 ; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Novelty Incandescent Lamp Co. (C. C. A.) 167 F. 977 ; A. R. Mosler & Co. v. Lurie (C. C. A.) 209 F. 364 ; Munising Paper Co., Limited, v. … Jockmus v. Leviton (C. C. A.) 28 F.(2d) 812 .

Sanborn Bros. v. Commissioner

14 B.T.A. 1059 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 8, 1929

California National Supply Co. v. Flack, 183 Cal. 124 ; 190 Pac. 634 ; Van Landingham v. United Tuna Packers, 208 Pac. 973 . … Caire, 174 Cal. 74 ; 161 Pac. 1161 ; see also Rossi v. Caire, 199 Pac. 1042 ; Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior Court, 205 Pac. 446 .

Caldwell v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 466 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 17, 1991

Caldwell, appeals a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) issued on August 2, 1990. … Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171, 174-75 (1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990) (The BVA must provide reasons or bases for its medical conclusions).

Glenwood Laboratories, Inc. v. American Home Products Corp.

455 F.2d 1384 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1972

The board’s view that a higher standard be applied to medicinal products finds support in previous decisions of this court, Clifton v. … .”); Campbell Products, Inc. v.

Cape Henry Syndicate v. Commissioner

30 B.T.A. 794 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 23, 1934

United States v. Dakota-Montana Oil Co., 288 U.S. 459 . Cf. art. 231. But he may not alter, amend, modify, or change the provisions of the act by regulations, Morrill v. Jones, 106 U.S. 466 ; Ramsey v. … The District Court, in deciding Boyne City Lumber Co. v.

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).

Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited Partnership v. Harry F. Chaveriat III

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 23, 2008

Opposition No. 91182083 Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited Partnership v. … stipulation or motion to that effect.1 Parties must inform the Board, by stipulation or motion, any time they agree to 1 Once an answer has been filed, the Board generally will not approve a motion or stipulation

Scratchley v. United States

96 Ct. Cl. 352 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 1, 1942

The sole question in the case is whether the plaintiff was retired May 27,1936 when the President approved the findings of the Board and its recommendation; or on August 1, 1936, the date recommended by the Board and the … Greenwald, Jr., v. The United States, 88 C. Cls. 264 , and Henry M. Butler v. The United States, 91 C. Cls. 88 , and other recent cases.

The Urock Network, LLC v. Umberto Sulpasso

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jul 17, 2015

Co. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 110 USPQ2d 1261, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Because the Board construed Mr. … John Timothy v.