Case law

Michienzi v. United States

207 Ct. Cl. 484 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 11, 1975

This case is not like Boyd v. … Under Army regulations, a “flagged” officer’s name goes before Selection Boards just like others, but the Board is not informed of the “flag”. Borys v. United States, 201 Ct.

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.

Pink v. Commissioner

38 B.T.A. 182 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 26, 1938

On February 23, 1938, a petition was filed with this Board, captioned “Louis H. Pink, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator of Lawyers Mortgage Company, Petitioner, v. … Lion Bonding Co. v. Karatz, 282 U. S. 77 ; O’Neil v. Welch, 245 Fed. 261 .

Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States

75 Fed. Cl. 761 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 28, 2007

See Hesse v. … See United States v.

Wpc Enterprises, Incorporated v. The United States

323 F.2d 874 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1964

Co. v. United States, 98 Ct.Cl. 256, 280 (1943); Ring Constr. Corp. v. United States, 162 F.Supp. 190 , 192, 142 Ct.Cl. 731, 734 (1958); Jefferson Constr. Co. v. … Civil Aeronautics Board, 240 F.2d 867, 874 (C.A.D.C., 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 941 , 77 S.Ct. 815 , 1 L.Ed.2d 760 (1957); Adams v. Witmer, 271 F.2d 29, 36-37 (C.A.9, 1958).

Updike v. United States

132 F. Supp. 957 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1955

for a determination of his entitlement to retirement pay; that in January 1950 he was authorized to enter a hospital for observation, and appearance before a Physical Evaluation Board; that on March 16, 1950, this Board … Womer v. United States, 84 F.Supp. 651 , 114 Ct.Cl. 415 ;. Hamrick v. United States, 96 F.Supp. 940 , 120 Ct.Cl. 17 ; Ramsey v.

Crowe v. United States

452 F.2d 1034 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 10, 1971

Facts which appear to be the same in the material respects, or more favorable to that plaintiff, have been considered at length by this court in an opinion announced today, O'Callahan v. … In Mathis v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 145 , 391 F. 2d 938 (1968), plaintiff had *568 gone before Boards of both kinds and we recognized no difference between them respecting limitation of actions.

Arthur J. Humphreys, Inc. v. United States

15 Ct. Int'l Trade 191 · United States Court of International Trade · May 3, 1991

Takahashi & Co. v. United States, 14 Cust. Ct., 38, 46, C.D. 4583 (1975); see also Tomoegawa USA, Inc. v. United States, 12 CIT 112 , 116, 681 F. … Baldechi & Son v. United States, 56 CCPA 112, C.A.D. 963, 420 F.2d 756 (1969) (following Quality Marble). In United States v.

Cooper-MacDonald, Inc.

21 Cont. Cas. Fed. 84,296 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 3, 1975

We have recently held in Manufacturers Service Co. v. United States, ante at 185, 518 F. 2d 1202 , and Bannercraft Clothing Co. v. … United States, supra, and Manufacturers Service Co. v.

Recreational Equipment, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Nov 20, 2020

Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386, 387 (CCPA 1973) (internal citations omitted). The facts in the Major League Umpires case were unusual. … See generally Dan Robbins & Assocs., Inc. v.

Edward Barron Estate Co. v. Commissioner

34 B.T.A. 1256 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 30, 1936

A. 22, it has been''consistently held that a petition is-not filed until it is officially deposited with the Board. This means at its office. Lewis-Hall Iron Works v. Blair, 23 Fed. (2d) 972; certiorari denied, 277 U. … See Poyner v. Commissioner, 81 Fed. (2d) 521. Reviewed by the Board.' The proceeding will he dismissed.

CHAVEZ

24 I. & N. Dec. 272 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2007

Hollander, Assistant Chief Counsel BEFORE: Board Panel: FILPPU and PAULEY, Board Members; M. C. GRANT, Temporary Board Member. M. C. … See INS v.

Yi v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 265 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 6, 2001

Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 938, 941 (1943); see also McClellan v. … See Stam v.

Alvin v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 295 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 28, 2001

Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94 , 73 S.Ct. 534 , 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953). … Wygant v. Jackson Board of Ed., 476 U.S. 267, 277-78 , 106 S.Ct. 1842 , 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986).

McCauley v. States

38 Fed. Cl. 250 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 1997

Id. at 135 (citing Spruill v. Merit Sys. Protection Board, 978 F.2d 679, 687-88 (Fed.Cir.1992)). … Spruill v. Merit Sys. Protection Board, 978 F.2d at 687 .

Parsons v. United States

65 Fed. Cl. 638 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 24, 2005

Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.Cir.1997) (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 2-3 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969)). 5 Next, Mr. … Brown, 105 F.3d at 623 (citing L’Enfant Plaza Props., Inc. v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 1 , 645 F.2d 886, 892 (1981)). Similarly, Mr.

In re Thompson

154 F.2d 189 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1946

The board held a Markush type claim which is wholly within .the scope of an allowed generic claim to be properly rejectable. In the case of Mathewson v. … We have no doubt the allowance of both types of those claims would violate the principle of Mathewson v. Campbell .

Breuer v. DeMarinis

558 F.2d 22 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1977

Kistler v. … The board’s opinion does not mention this statement. . Accord, Golota v. Strom, 489 F.2d 1287 , 180 USPQ 396 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1974). .

Stone v. Commissioner

32 T.C. 1021 · United States Tax Court · Jul 31, 1959

Helvering v. Winmill, 305 U.S. 79, 83 . … Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 . And this is even more true where the entries are made by parties, over whom the taxpayer has no control.

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

Arthur v. Morgan ( 112 U. S., 495 ), Herrman v. Robertson ( 152 U. S., 521 ), Presson v. Russell ( 152 U. S., 577 ), Heinze v. Arthur’s Executors ( 144 U. S., 28 ), Battle v. United States (108 Fed. Rep., 216). … Arthur v. Fox ( 108 U. S., 125 ). In Pickhardt v. Merritt ( 132 U.