Case law

F. Brody & Sons Co. v. Commissioner

11 T.C. 298 · United States Tax Court · Sep 16, 1948

The Commissioner also cites, without comment, United States v. Mellon, 279 Fed. 910 , and United States v. Davison, 1 Fed. (2d) 465. … See Athens Roller Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner, 136 Fed. (2d) 125; Sutherland v. Bohn, 33 Fed. (2d) 643; and Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Grand National Bank, 69 Fed. (2d) 177.

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).

Burr Creamery Corp. v. Commissioner

23 B.T.A. 1007 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 30, 1931

BURR CREAMERY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Burr Creamery Corp. v. Commissioner Docket No. 26983. … Brown 1 1 1 1 E. H. Graham 1 1 Geo. R. Frampton 1 1 1 E. A. Bost 1 1 1 Geo.

Biggins v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 474 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 25, 1991

We hold (1) that the determination by the Board of Veterans’s Appeals (BVA or Board) that appellant’s multiple sclerosis was not incurred during her period of active duty for training was not clearly erroneous, 38 U.S.C. … Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vt.App. 49, 52-53 (1990); see also Lovelace v. Derwinski, 1 *477 Vt.App. 73 (1990); Hillyard v. Derwinski, 1 Vt.App. 349 (1991).

Application of Gene O. Sinex

309 F.2d 488 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1962

For .the reasons hereinafter stated, we think the board was correct. … This expression falls within the rule of the cases listed in Appendix “A” to Kropa v.

11-21 548

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Nov 28, 2014

. § 3.303(d); see also Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994). … Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

American Marine Upholstery Company v. The United States

345 F.2d 577 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1965

Thus, it must be said that the Board of Contract Appeals’ decision on all factual matters above outlined was reasonable and based upon substantial evidence and is accorded finality. Automatic Screw Products Company v. … United States v. Blair, supra; United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Co., supra.

Barlow v. United States

123 Fed. Cl. 186 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 1, 2015

Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 321 (1981). In order for a railroad company to terminate rail service, the railroad company must obtain the consent of the Surface Transportation Board. See Barclay v. … Co. v.

Division of Powers and Responsibilities Between the Chairperson of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and the Board as a Whole

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Jun 26, 2000

June 26, 2000 m em orandum O p in io n f o r t h e G e n e r a l C o u n s e l C h e m ic a l S a fet y a n d H a z a r d I n v e s t ig a t io n B o a r d Y o u … Rose V, Chairperson, United States Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, from Larry L.

State Trial Attorneys Ass'n v. Flournoy

522 F.2d 1406 · Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1975

Indeed, California joined its employee plaintiffs in challenging the validity of Pay Board— CLC action limiting the employees’ pay increases. … United States v. California, 504 F.2d 750 (Em.App., 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1015 , 95 S.Ct. 2428 , 44 L.Ed.2d 684 (1975). The statement of this court in Carpenters 46 County Conference Board et al. v.

Russo & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 288 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1922

Upon this state of facts the Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest. … We note in this connection that in that opinion it is stated that the board relied upon T. D. 21785. The correct reference should have been instead to T. D. 21758. We do not find the cases of Smith & Co. v.

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. National Steel Construction Co.

442 F.2d 1383 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1971

The board rejected this argument and so do we. … In a similar situation involving the mark National Judge Kirkpatrick protected the mark in National Drying Machinery Co. v.

John Doe v. Department of Justice

2014 MSPB 75 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Sep 23, 2014

Doe v. Department of Justice, 118 M.S.P.R. 434, ¶ 3 (2012) (Doe I). The appellant filed an appeal of his removal to the Board. Id., ¶ 5. … Grimes v. 6 The Board is not permitted to grant summary judgment because an appellant has the right to a hearing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1). Crispin v.

11-02 249

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Nov 28, 2014

Hall v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 294 (1993). However, an apportionment of benefits under 38 C.F.R. § 3.450 may not cause undue financial hardship on the Veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.451 (2014). … Elias v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 259, 263 (1997). The record indicates that, at the time J.H. filed a claim for apportionment, the Veteran lived apart from his minor children, over whom she is guardian.

American Federal Bank, FSB v. United States

62 Fed. Cl. 185 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2004

Lincoln Bank v. … Lincoln Bank v.

Horn

650 F.2d 286 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 21, 1980

See, e.g., Hary v. United States, ante at 10, 618 F.2d 704 (1980). … See, e.g., Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 302 -03, 594 F.2d at 814 ; Hary v. United States, supra.

Envistacom, LLC

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Feb 19, 2025

Trading & Constr., ASBCA No. 63522, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,528 at 187,289 (quoting ECC Int’l Constr., LLC v. Sec’y of Army, 79 F.4th 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). … Board Rule 17 states that “[w]henever the record discloses the failure of either party to file documents required by these Rules, respond to notices or correspondence from the Board, comply with orders of the Board, or otherwise

Garey v. Commissioner

16 B.T.A. 274 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 30, 1929

Again quoting from Noel v. … The petitioner attempts to distinguish Noel v.

In re Hamilton

64 F.2d 141 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1933

Before leaving this branch of the case we would observe that in the case of Bresnahan et al. v. … Eibel Process Company v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Company, 261 U. S. 45 .

12-18 220

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jun 30, 2015

See Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 394 (1996). … See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Mittleider v. West, 11 Vet. App. 181 (1998) citing Mitchem v. Brown, 9 Vet.