Case law

Anthony Salazar v. Department of Veterans Affairs

2022 MSPB 42 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Dec 13, 2022

Swanson v. … FOR THE BOARD: /s/ Jennifer Everling Acting Clerk of the Board Washington, D.C.

Henry A. O'Lague v. Department of Veterans Affairs

2016 MSPB 20 · Merit Systems Protection Board · May 11, 2016

See Hillen v. … Douglas v.

Coates v. Department of the Air Force

230 Ct. Cl. 935 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 30, 1982

In its May 26, 1981 decision, the mspb considered the issue of whether the time limit for filing an appeal should be waived for good cause, the criteria for which is set out by the board in Alonzo v. … See also McKechnie v. United States, 227 Ct. Cl. 113 , 648 F.2d 1300 (1981); Keeling v. United States, 172 Ct. Cl. 246, 250 (1965).

Nakayama v. Banner

588 F.2d 1336 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1978

Van DeVegt v. Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, 98 Colo. 161, 164 , 55 P.2d 703, 705 (1936). … As we said in Duffy v.

Shell Co. of California v. Commissioner

10 B.T.A. 1324 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 12, 1928

The matter of granting the respondent additional time in which to answer being within the discretion of the Board, as .decided in Shults Bread Co. v. Commissioner, 10 B. T. … By the Board: (Signed) C. Rogers Arundell, Member, United States Board of Tax Appeals. Dated March 12, 1928. Sternhagen, Van Fossan, and Murdock dissent.

King-Kup Candies, Inc., Applicant-Appellant v. King Candy Company, Opposer-Appellee

288 F.2d 944 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1961

In The Bon Ami Company v. … Co. v.

Sally E. Friedlund v. R. James Nicholson

21 Vet. App. 380 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 23, 2007

. § 1310(a); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet.App. 141 (1999), aff'd sub nom. Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (Fed. … See id. at 1380-81; Hatch v. Principi, 18 Vet.App. 527, 529-30 (2004) (permitting the adjudication of enhanced DIC claims by the Board on a hypothetical basis).

American Telecom Corp. v. United States

59 Fed. Cl. 467 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 18, 2004

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984); Boyle v. … In Marshall Associated Contractors, Inc. v.

Cataldi Aurola v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 340 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1911

So in Lawder v. Stone ( 187 U. S., 281 ). The Supreme Court, in referring to Marriot v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. United States

656 F.2d 644 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 29, 1981

plaintiff made no effort either to clarify its position by advising the board within 90 days that it objected to the board’s treatment of its notice or that it desired to proceed under the act, but before the board. … Coil v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 595 (1981). 41 U.S.C. § 606 (Supp. II 1978). 41 U.S.C. § 609 (a)(1) (Supp. II 1978).

San Millan v. United States

153 F. Supp. 370 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1957

Dismuke v. United States, 297 U. S. 167 ; Uhley v. United States, 137 C. Cls. 275 ; Gordon v. United States, 129 C. Cls. 270 ; Suter v. United States, decided this day, ante, p. 466. … Some, but not all, of those documents had been submitted in support of plaintiff’s previous applications for hearings before a retiring board and a physical evaluation board.

Globe Corp. v. Commissioner

20 T.C. 299 · United States Tax Court · May 7, 1953

The Board held, following Continental Tie & Lumber Co. v. … The Board went on to say: "This was purely a matter of computation under the express direction of the statute."

Dean v. United States

92 Fed. Cl. 133 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 2010

Corp. v. … All that the existence of judicial review means is that the Board’s decision will be reviewed, in a proper ease, if a timely suit is brought. 18 Friedman v.

O'Callaghan

578 F.2d 1390 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 27, 1978

Devine v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 998 (1975); Eurell v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 273 , 566 F.2d 1146 (1977); McGahey v. United States, 213 Ct.Cl. 717 (1977); Pratt v. United States, 215 Ct.Cl. 987 (1977). … Brundage v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 502, 505-06, 509-10, 510-11 , 504 F.2d 1382, 1384, 1386-87, 1387 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 998 (1975).

200317-144031

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Apr 30, 2021

See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (Fed. … See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). As concurrent review mechanisms are prohibited by applicable regulations, the Board does not have jurisdiction to address the issue on appeal, and the claim must be dismissed.

Pustet v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 530 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

Sutherland on Statutory Construction (2d ed.) sec. 493; United States v. Field & Co., 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 430, 431 ; Oxford Iron Co. v. Slafter, 118 Fed. Cas. 930 ; Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 117 Fed. 462, 466 . … United States v. Smith & Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384, 387, 388 . The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Application of Francis J. Boylan

392 F.2d 1017 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1968

Kistler v. … v.

Construction Service Co. v. United States

357 F.2d 973 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 18, 1966

Co. v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 1 , 314 F. 2d 501 (1963). … Goltra v. United States, 119 Ct. Cl. 217, 255 , 96 F. Supp. 618 (1951). Also cf. Brock & Blevins Co. v. United States, supra, 170 Ct. Cl. at 58.

DynPort Vaccine Company LLC

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Sep 30, 2015

In sum, the Board's jurisdiction is defined by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. E.g., United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Roche, 380 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004). … See Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Center v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 854, 858 (Fed.

Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumüller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred Bänder

343 F.2d 965 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1965

V Would a statement in the claims of what' the compounds are useful for convert them into claims to compounds which are any less obvious? … Marshall and Max V. Sigal, but was dissolved out Dec. 2, 1959, before the interference was dissolved on June 20, 1960. .