Case law

Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. United States

77 Ct. Cl. 57 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 6, 1933

Knapp v. United States, 46 C.Cls. 601; Coleman v. United States, 152 U.S. 96 ; Bigby v. United States, 188 U.S. 400 . In Bigby v. … In Coleman v.

Werking v. United States

4 Cl. Ct. 101 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 19, 1983

Hary v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 10, 15, 17 , 618 F.2d 704, 706, 707 (1980). See also Depte v. United States, 715 F.2d 1481 (Fed.Cir.1983). … In Peters v.

Knauth v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 324 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

The board denied the application. … In Uberti & Cia. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust.

Prosser & Son v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 550 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1911

The case of Saltonstall v. Wiebusch ( 156 U. S., 601 ) is not in conflict with this conclusion. … Bromley v. United States (156 Fed. Rep., 958); Prosser v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., supra, p. 22; T. D. 30848; 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., supra, p. 29; T. D. 80850).

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.

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.

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).

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.

09-03 190

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 31, 2015

See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). In July 2014, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that proceeding is of record. … See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

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.

Gump Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

Lunham v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 220 ; T. D. 31258); McBride v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 293 ; T. D. 31354). … Westray v. United States ( 18 Wall., 322, 329 ); Fabbri v. Murphy ( 95 U. S., 191 ); Merritt v. Cameron ( 137 U. S., 545 ). See also Revised Statutes, section 3294. and Customs Regulations of 1908, article 248 et seq.

Swift & Co. v. United States

59 Ct. Cl. 364 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1924

In Harvey v. United States, 105 U. … In Brown v. District of Columbia, 121 U. S. 579 , the validity of a paving contract Avas involved. The authority Avas in the board of public works, there.

Dynasciences Corp. v. United States

23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,511 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 8, 1977

Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1 (1974). … Ball Co. v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 223, 254 , 531 F.2d 993, 1010 (1976); Boeing Co. v.

The W. E. Bassett Company v. The Scholl Mfg. Co., Inc.

388 F.2d 1014 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1968

cited Menendez v. … This court stated in Powermatics, Inc. v.

Application of John L. Szajna and Ronald G. Lump

422 F.2d 443 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 5, 1970

The solicitor counters by contending that this court’s holding in Kropa v. Robie, supra, was to the effect only that “claims limitations as to use which necessarily imply structural features may be given weight.” … In Kropa v.

12-17 169

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Oct 31, 2014

Once evidence is determined to be competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence is also credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. … The Board finds this opinion highly probative as the examiner offered a clear opinion and supported the opinion with a reasoned rationale. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.

Marine v. Wright

74 F.2d 996 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1935

After the decision of the board, appellant filed a motion for rehearing; said motion was denied, the board again affirming the right of appellee to make the claim. … Marshall and Levandosky v. Ledwinka, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 728, 67 F. (2d) 495, and cases therein cited.

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 .

RTX Scientific, Incorporated v. Nu-Calgon Wholesaler, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Mar 22, 2013

See, e.g., Greenhouse Systems Inc. v. Carson, 37 USPQ2d 1748, 1750 (TTAB 1995) (the Board does not consider motions in limine). Thus, to the extent that respondent moves to exclude Mr. … Downey v.

Pierpont v. Commissioner

35 T.C. 65 · United States Tax Court · Oct 19, 1960

On March 22, 1956 the Board of Directors of the Loewy Drug Company met. … On April 27,1956 the Board of Directors of the Loewy Drug Company again met.