Case law

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.

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). .

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.

Wise F&I, LLC; Financial Gap, Administrator LLC; Vehicle Service Administrator LLC; and Administration America LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 23, 2016

Consolidation Consolidation is discretionary with the Board and may be ordered sua sponte. See, Venture Out Props. LLC v. Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1887, 1889 (TTAB 2007); 8440 LLC v. … Leave to Amend Pleadings Upon granting a motion to dismiss, the Board may exercise its discretion to allow a plaintiff the opportunity to cure a defective pleading. See Intellimedia Sports Inc. v.

Wise F&I, LLC; Financial Gap, Administrator LLC; Vehicle Service Administrator LLC; and Administration America LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 23, 2016

Consolidation Consolidation is discretionary with the Board and may be ordered sua sponte. See, Venture Out Props. LLC v. Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1887, 1889 (TTAB 2007); 8440 LLC v. … Leave to Amend Pleadings Upon granting a motion to dismiss, the Board may exercise its discretion to allow a plaintiff the opportunity to cure a defective pleading. See Intellimedia Sports Inc. v.

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.

Bishop v. United States

673 F.2d 1369 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 24, 1982

Cason v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 424, 432 , 471 F.2d 1225, 1230 (1973). … Sanders v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 962 (1975); Horn v. Schlesinger, 514 F.2d 549 (8th Cir.1975); Doyle v. United States, 220 Ct.

Bushra Company

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Apr 22, 2016

The letter did not include language required by the FAR explaining the right to appeal to the agency board of contract appeals within 90 days (see id., FAR 33.21 l(a)(3)(v)). … The timeliness of appealing a CO' s final decision is a matter of the Board's jurisdiction. See 41U.S.C.§7104 (2011) (formerly 41U.S.C.§606); Cosmic Construction Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389, 1390 (Fed.

Feltex Corporation v. Dutchess Hat Works

71 F.2d 322 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1934

, and Judge Brown concurred “in the result of” the judgment for the reasons stated in his concurring opinion. … See Brown & Co. et al. v. United States, 12 Cust. App. 93, T. D. 40026, and cases therein cited.” We are unable to see wherein these observations are applicable to tlie ease at bar.

PBS&J Constructors, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jul 25, 2014

PBS&JC was a sister company to Peter Brown Construction (Brown). Atkins North America, Inc. (Atkins), the parent company, had design responsibility. … PBS&JC began doing business as Brown at project start. 2 Kleinfelder Central (Kleinfelder) was Brown's geotechnical engineer and Alliance Geotechnical Group of Austin, Inc., (Alliance) was its geotechnical inspector.

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.

Application of Bisley

197 F.2d 355 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1952

We are unable to agree with the board’s holding as to claims 20 and 39. … Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., v. Ray-O-Vac Company, 321 U.S. 275 , 64 S.Ct. 593 , 88 L.Ed. 721 ; In re DeLancey, 159 F.2d 737 , 34 C.C.P.A., Patents, 849.

Steinberg Brothers, Inc. v. New England Overall Co., Inc.

377 F.2d 1004 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1967

Neumann & Co. v. Bon-Ton Auto Upholstery, Inc., 326 F.2d 799 , 51 CCPA 934 (1964) and R. Neumann & Co. v. … Byron & Sons, Inc. v. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co., 377 F.2d 1001 , 54 CCPA -.

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.

Boraiko v. United States

146 Ct. Cl. 814 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1959

Wales v. United States, 132 C. Cls. 765 ; San Millan v. United States, supra; Palluconi v. United States, 136 C. Cls. 190 ; Lemly v. United States, 117 C. Cls. 365 . … This was also the test applied In Proper v. United States, 139 C. Cls. 511 , and Patterson v. United States, 141 C. Cls. 435 .

10-10 091

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Apr 30, 2015

Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert. … Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (1994). Therefore, entitlement to service connection is considered on this basis as well.

Rubin Bros. Footwear v. United States

13 Cust. Ct. 208 · United States Customs Court · Nov 15, 1944

The subject of “grained leather” was treated rather exhaustively in the opinion of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in the case of United States v. John B. Stetson Co., 21 C. C. P. A. 3, T. … Counsel for the plaintiff has cited in the brief filed in its behalf the case of United States v. Pacific Binding Library Co., 22 C. C. P. A. 641, T. D. 47617.

Austin v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 313 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1913

Robertson v. Salomon, supra; Nix v. Hedden, supra. Q. … See United States v. Nordlinger ( 121 Fed., 690 ). In Taylor et al. v.

Moses v. United States

137 Ct. Cl. 374 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 16, 1957

Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137 ; Fly v. United States, 120 C. Cls. 482 . … Said Board of Beview was a board of review of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, on the 20th day of July 1953 this accused, Bobby J.

Duval v. Commissioner

21 B.T.A. 1357 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 23, 1931

A. 1269; Phillips v. Commissioner, 42 Fed. (2d) 177; Routzahn v. Tyroler, 36 Fed. (2d) 208; certiorari denied, 281 U. S. 734 . The question of the statute of limitations was waived by the petitioner in his brief. … See Comstock v. Crawford, 3 Wall. 396 .