Case law

RODRIGUEZ-DIAZ

22 I. & N. Dec. 1320 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2000

See United States v. Mendoza- Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 840 (1987); see also Matter of Shih, supra. … See United States v.

Bd. of Trs. of the Sheet Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund v. Comm'r

117 T.C. 220 · United States Tax Court · Dec 4, 2001

Citing Alessi v. … .’”); Ashenbaugh v.

In re Yardley

493 F.2d 1389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1974

The board affirmed this rejection. In support of the affirmance, the board’s opinion cites and discusses the following twelve cases: 1. Louis De Jonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co., 182 F. 150 (C.C.S. … In Mazer v.

In re Leslie

547 F.2d 116 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1977

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (board), adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection of appellant’s application 1 for a design patent on a golf club shaft. … The test we applied in that case was approved as one of ancient validity by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 444 F.2d 295 , 168 USPQ 258 (CA 9 1970).

Troup Bros.

618 F.2d 123 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 24, 1979

Zidell Explorations, Inc. v. United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 331 , 427 F. 2d 735 (1970). … Zidell Explorations, Inc. v.

TOMAS

19 I. & N. Dec. 464 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1987

See Tejeda-Mata v. INS, 626 F.2d 721, 726 (9th Cir. 1980) (dictum), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 994 (1982); Niarchos v. INS, 393 F.2d 509 (7th Cir. 1968) (dictum); Gonzales v. Zurbrick, 45 F.2d 934 (6th Cir. 1930). … The request for oral argument before the Board is denied as moot.

Application of Sune Bergstrom and Jan Sjovall

427 F.2d 1394 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 16, 1970

Therefore, a second reversed-phase chromatography was run using 35% (v/v) methanol/water saturated with Vio of its volume of 40% (v/v) isoamyl acetate/chloroform as moving phase. … Seed Co.] v. Kalo [Kalo Inoculant Co.], 333 U.S. 127 [ 68 S.Ct. 440 , 92 L.Ed. 588 ] 76 USPQ 280 .

HEB International Logistics

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Mar 12, 2015

Co. v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537, 1545-46 (Fed. … Lehman, Inc. v. United States, 673 F.2d 352, 354, 230 Ct.

CRUZ-VALDEZ

Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 15, 2021

Garcia-DeLeon v. … Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d. 656, 667 (7th Cir. 2020) (Barrett, J.); see $UFRV6DQFKH]Y$WW¶\*HQ86RI$P, 997 F.3d 113, 121–22 (3d Cir. 2021); 5RPHURY%DUU, 937 F.3d 282, 292 (4th Cir. 2019).

Merker Counter Company, Inc. v. Central Counter Company

310 F.2d 746 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1962

consideration of the merits in connection with arguments of the parties and any evidence respondent may elect to introduce in addition to” the aforesaid third-party registrations and applications, citing En-do Products, Inc. v. … The board found that the goods of the parties are identical in kind; that shoe counters are stiffeners made of fiber board or plastic.

In Re Chase

71 F.2d 178 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1934

It is the Board’s affirmance of this decision that brought about the instant appeal. Claims 1 and 10 were not included in the counts of the interference (Friden v. … The Board’s decision is short and refers to its above-mentioned decision in the appeal' in the interference proceeding Friden v. Chase No. 60,503.

Arness v. Franks

138 F.2d 213 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 15, 1943

In his brief before us Arness has cited a number of court decisions,, those principally relied upon being Davis et al. v. Isham et al., 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1222, 71 F. (2d) 204; Wemple and Daesen v. … (Patents) 1064, 75 F. (2d) 998, and Becket v. Arness, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1251, 112 F. (2d) 1011.

American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Commissioner

44 B.T.A. 131 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 9, 1941

The courts have gone even further than the Board in permitting amendments to original petitions filed. See Chicago Railway Equipment Co. v. Blair (C. C. … In Denholm & McKay Co., supra, the Board held: On consideration of the opinions of the Circuit Courts of Appeal of the two cited cases [Rieck v. Commissioner, supra, and Commissioner v.

Condenser Service & Engineering Co. v. United States

128 F. Supp. 148 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 8, 1955

Board. … In Hanson v. United States, 117 C. Cls. 605 , we awarded an amount less than the Appeal Board had allowed. The question so warmly contested in the instant case was not raised by the parties and we were not aware of it.

Unicon Management Corporation v. The United States

375 F.2d 804 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1967

See Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc. v. United States, 361 F.2d 222, 228 , 175 Ct.Cl. 527, 536 (1966). … Co. v. United States, 161 Ct.Cl. 1, 7 , 314 F.2d 501 , 504 (1963); Jefferson Constr. Co. v.

Amaratek

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jan 22, 2015

See Groves v. Shinseki, 541 F. App'x 981, 984 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2013) (unpublished decision); Naekel v. Department of Transportation, 845 F.2d 976, 981 (Fed. … Dumas's affidavit in support of the application, and Amaratek sent the application to the Board by FedEx. Such expenses incurred preparing an EAJA application are allowable, see Gavette v.

Stern v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

Limitations of this kind were defined by this court in the recent case of Lazarus, Rosenfeld & Lehmann v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 508 ; T. D. 32247). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is accordingly modified.

In re Wright

256 F.2d 583 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1958

and ambient air temperature (Ti), as specified in the appealed claims (24-27), since this would require that said fuel flow (Wf) be a selected function (.0) of the variables (B), (V), (Ti), that is: Wt = 0 (S, V, Ti) The … The board’s reasons for allowing those claims are irrelevant.

Sheffner v. Gallo

515 F.2d 1169 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 15, 1975

Mortsell v. Laurila, 301 F.2d 947 , 49 CCPA 1028 (1962). See Rule 258, 37 CFR 1.258. … DeGroff v. Roth, 412 F.2d 1401 , 56 CCPA 1331 (1969), “[t]here can be no derivation without prior conception on the part of the party alleging derivation.” Egnot v. Looker, 387 F.2d 680 , 55 CCPA 782 (1967). .

Utley-James, Inc. v. United States

34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,478 · United States Court of Claims · May 5, 1988

Koppers Co. v. United States, 186 Ct.Cl. 142, 148-49 , 405 F.2d 554, 557-58 (1968). Factual determinations by a Board are deemed presumptively correct. Chaney and James Constr. Co. v. … Further, it is the Board’s function to resolve conflicting evidence. Dean Constr. Co. v. United States, 188 Ct.Cl. 62 , 70, 411 F.2d 1238, 1242 (1969); General Dynamics Corp. v.