Case law

M/V "FERROL"

14 I. & N. Dec. 18 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1972

Interim Decision #2122 MATTER OF M/V " FERROL" In Fine Proceedings SPM-1012.89 Decided by Board January 31,1972 Liability … At the time of his arrival, a Form I-95A, Crewman's Landing Permit, was given to him bearing the nota- tion "Detained on board, adm. in transit to M/V Ferrol T.R.W.O.V."

09-32 128

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). Consideration may be given to the Veteran's level of education, special training, and previous work experience in arriving at a conclusion, but not to his age. … See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995).

In re Haller

161 F.2d 280 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1947

Counsel for appellant cites numerous decisions, such as, for example, Ajax Metal Co. v. Brady Brass Co., 155 Fed. 409 ; Ludlum Steel Co. v. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is •affirmed.

Roeller-Struss Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 189 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 21, 1924

—Lloyd Co. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 280 ; T. D. 38217); Pacific Creosoting Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 312 ; T. D. 31407); Pierce v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 171 ; T. D. 31215). … —Ulmann & Co. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 77 ; T. D. 33363); United States v. Schumacher & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 301 ; T. D. 32586).

ANDAZOLA

23 I. & N. Dec. 319 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2002

In Plyler v. … In Tukhowinich v.

Darling & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 86 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest. … As to the applicability of paragraph 384 it may be observed that the judgment of the board overruling the protest in this case was entered January 24, 1923. Four months later in the case of Willits & Co. v.

Pathman Construction Co. v. United States

652 F.2d 70 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1981

See Langevin v. United States, 100 Ct. … The Board is in the best position to consider the credibility of testimony, Koppers Co. v. United States, 186 Ct.

In re Board of County Commissioners

43 Ohio Law. Abs. 548 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 27, 1944

Pfeiffer v Jenkins, 141 Oh St 66, 68. … Ursuline Academy of Cleveland v Board of Tax Appeals, 141 Oh St 559.

Bostwick-Batterson Company v. United States

283 F.2d 956 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1960

Torres v. United States, 112 P.Supp. 363, 126 Ct.Cl. 76, 79 . … Corp. v.

Korn Ferry

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 27, 2024

See New Era Cap Co. v. Pro Era, LLC, 2020 WL 2853282, at *1 n.1 (TTAB 2020). … (quoting Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).

Johnson v. United States

527 F.2d 1209 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 17, 1975

Underwater Storage, Inc. v. … As already indicated (fn. 2, supra), it is thoroughly settled that, if the administrative remedy is a prerequisite to suit, limitations begins to run from the Board’s determination. See also Burich v.

S.S. Silberblatt, Inc. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,734 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 8, 1983

Plaintiff has to meet a heavy burden of establishing that, on the record before the Board, the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Koppers v. … Plaintiff has failed to show that the record before the Board does not support the Board’s findings and conclusion. Sundstrand Turbo v. United States, 182 Ct.Cl. 31, 60 , 389 F.2d 406, 422-23 (1968).

Heuss v. United States

78 Fed. Cl. 442 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 25, 2007

Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. (Reynolds), 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.Cir.1988). … Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 497, 499 , aff'd, 98 Fed.Appx. 860 (Fed.Cir.2004) (Table); see also Kelley v.

National Line Co.

214 Ct. Cl. 807 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 21, 1977

Under the rule of Nager Electric Co. v. United States, 184 Ct. … Nager Electric Co., Inc. v. United States, supra, 184 Ct. Cl. at 401 , 396 F.2d at 982-83 .

BLAS

15 I. & N. Dec. 626 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1974

Chen v. Foley, supra. … In Mar Gong v.

Dawson v. Martin

111 F.2d 300 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1940

Deibel v. Heise et al., supra. The counts here involved are broad and there is no ambiguity in their terms. They were broadly construed by the Primary Examiner and by the Board of Appeals. … Likewise we have held that where the Board of Appeals construes, counts narrowly in order to avoid prior art, we will give the same construction. Kauffman, II v. Etten et al., 25 C. C. P. A.

Harris v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 180 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 20, 1991

Congress granted this Court “exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.” 38 U.S.C. § 4052 (a) (1988). … Carter/Mondale Presidential Comm., Inc. v. FEC, 711 F.2d 279 , 284-85 n. 9 (D.C.Cir.1983).

Jany Renz, Jean Pierre Bourquin, Guido Gamboni and Gustav Schwarb v. Robert Michel Jacob and Gilbert Louis Regnier

326 F.2d 792 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964

Appellees, citing Schweyer v. Thomas, 68 F.2d 953 , 21 CCPA 859; Robie v. Carlton, 171 F.2d 310 , 36 CCPA 739; Braren v. Horner, 47 F.2d 358 , 18 CCPA 971; and Dreyfus v. … Appellees, citing Malm et al. v. Schneider, 101 F.2d 201 , 26 CCPA 783; George T. Southgate v. Albert E. Greene, 57 F.2d .374, 19 CCPA 1129; Knight v. King, 82 F.2d 817 , 23 CCPA 1074; and Bac v.

Knorr v. Pearson

671 F.2d 1368 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1982

Hasselstrom v. … Foss v.

Application of Limestone Products Corporation of America

312 F.2d 825 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1963

The decisions of this court in In re Deister Concentrator Company, Inc., 289 F.2d 496 , 48 CCPA 952, and Weiss Noodle Co. v. … The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. Affirmed.