Case law

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).

Burns v. United States

9 Cl. Ct. 273 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 5, 1985

Kester v. Horner, 778 F.2d 1565, 1570 (Fed.Cir.1985); see also Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312-13 , 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2566-67 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976); Puglisi v. … Hary v.

Hercules Inc. v. National Patent Development Corp.

524 F.2d 1227 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1975

CTS Corp. v. Cronstroms Manufacturing, Inc., *1229 supra. … See Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., supra. For the foregoing, reasons, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. Affirmed. . Abstracted at 183 USPQ 791 (1974). .

Cross Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 43 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1916

We find, however, upon examination of the record that no such point was made before the board, and it appears that the board was under a misapprehension as to the state of the record in that respect, for, after deciding that … The question is therefore presented whether under these circumstances the board should have, without objection, dismissed the case for multifariousness. We had before us in Fuld v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust.

N. Fiorito Co. v. United States

180 Ct. Cl. 1285 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1967

Co. v. United States, decided today, [ 177 Ct. Cl. 234, 244-249 , 368 F. 2d 847, 854-57 ]. This suit having been brought, no subsequent suit on the same contract would normally be allowable. Plaintiff bears that risk. … United States v. Callahan Walker Constr. Co., 317 U.S. 56 (1942); United States v. Blair, 321 U.S. 730 (1944); United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Co., 328 U.S. 234 (1946); P.L.S. Coat & Suit Corp. v.

Tonya Rhodes v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Merit Systems Protection Board · Apr 26, 2022

v. … Brown v. Office of Personnel Management, 113 M.S.P.R. 325, ¶ 5 (2010).

Illfelder v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 109 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

Wanamaker v. Cooper (69 Fed. Rep., 465; Thanhauser v. United States (159 Fed. Rep., 228). … United States v. Strauss (136 Fed. Rep., 185-187), reversing United States v. Strauss (128 Fed. Rep., 473); United States v. Cattus (167 Fed. Rep., 532); Thanhauser v. United States (159 Fed. Rep., 228-232).

Prakash Melwani v. Allegiance Corporation

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Dec 29, 2010

Opposer asks that the Board rule on applicant's motion to strike Count V and reset the entire schedule or that the Board find excusable neglect due to opposer's belief that the proceeding was suspended and reopen and … Super Bakery Inc. v. Benedict, 96 USPQ2d 1134, 1136 (TTAB 2010) (only an order of the Board formally suspending proceedings can suspend a case.)

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.

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.

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.

Optimal Data Corp. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,708 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 16, 1989

Vista Scientific Corp. v. *727 United States, 808 F.2d 50, 52 (Fed.Cir.1986). On appeal, a plaintiff may attack both a board’s conclusions of law and its findings of fact. … See, e.g., Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct.Cl. 757, 762-64 , 345 F.2d 833, 836-37 (1965) (cited with approval in United States 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)).

ELGENDI

23 I. & N. Dec. 515 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2002

Concurring Opinion: ESPENOZA, Board Member. … Espenoza, Board Member I respectfully concur.

Mitchell v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 1329 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1992

Resort to a correction board is permissive, not mandatory, and therefore does not toll the running of the statute of limitations. Hurick, 782 F.2d at 987 ; Ellzey v. … Marsh, 787 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir. 1986) (plaintiff’s cause of action accrued at the time of correction board’s decision); Linfors v.

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.

Egry Register Co. v. United States

3 Cust. Ct. 656 · United States Customs Court · Dec 14, 1939

Dec. 286 ; Lloyd Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 283 , T. D. 38217; United States v. Glendinning McLeish & Co., Inc., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 222 , T. D. 40229; M. J. Corbett & Co., Inc. v. United States, T. … Lloyd Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 280 , T. D. 38217; United States v. Bloomingdale, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 149 , T. D. 38400; United Stales v. Sabin, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 521 , T. D. 40731.

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.