Case law

Stone & Downer Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 337 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

We think the board’s decision, was correct. … In Union Food Products Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 343 , T.

Muse v. United States

13 Cl. Ct. 372 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1987

Brundage v. … Pepper v.

Ivar Jepson v. Robert E. Coleman, Jr., and Calvin D. MacCracken

314 F.2d 533 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1963

The board found that appellees did have the right to make counts 1-5. … See Brand v. Thomas, 96 F.2d 301 ; 25 CCPA 1053; Crome v. Morrogh, 239 F.2d 390 , 44 CCPA 704.

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. United States

79 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 5, 1934

Co. v. … In the absence of a showing of fraud or such gross error as may imply bad faith amounting to fraud the decision of the board is conclusive. United States v. Gleason, 175 U.S. 588 ; Rifley v.

United States v. Billin & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 286 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1919

When the caso came on for hearing before the board no evidence-ivas offered by the importers and the case was apparently submitted to the board on the report and papers forwarded by the collector to-the board after the protest … In the case of United States v. Shallus ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., 168 ;. T.

Laningham v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 535 · United States Court of Claims · May 31, 1983

See Gratehouse v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 288, 300-01 , 512 F.2d 1104, 1111 (1975); see also Huling v. United States, 185 Ct.Cl. 407, 412-13 , 401 F.2d 998, 1001 (1968); Campbell v. … Such a claim comes clearly within our jurisdiction and presents an appropriate occasion for reviewing the actions of a Correction Board under 28 U.S.C. § 1491 . Sanders v.

Spier Wines (PTY) Ltd. v. Ofer Z. Shepher

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 12, 2012

Charrette Corp. v. … Further, unlike the facts discussed in the Board’s recent decision in Byer California v.

Robert N. Noyce v. Jack St. Clair Kilby, Jack St. Clair Kilby v. Robert N. Noyce

416 F.2d 1391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1970

Binstead v. Littmann, 242 F.2d 766 , 44 CCPA 839 (1957). … See Smith v. Wehn, 318 F.2d 325 , 50 CCPA 1544 and Dreyfus and Harrison v. Sternau, 357 F.2d 411 , 53 CCPA 1050.

10-24 682

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jun 4, 2015

See generally Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Barrera v. Gober, 122 F.3d 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1997). … While the Board is cognizant of the Court's decision in Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet.

United States v. Francklyn

4 Ct. Cust. 54 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1913

No court decision directly in point is cited; but in Rice v. United States ( 123 Fed., 195 ) the correctness of the Government’s present *58 -contention was assumed, and Saxonville Mills v. Russell ( 116 U. … The opinion of the board was in accord with the foregoing, but the -collector’s action was reversed by the board on grounds not stated in the opinion, presumably on the ground that the proper divisor to be used in ascertaining

Entravision Communications Corporation v. Liberman Television LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jan 26, 2015

See General Council of the Assemblies of God v. Heritage Music Foundation, 97 USPQ2d 1890, 1893 (TTAB 2011); and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (“TBMP”) § 401.03 (2014). … The Board will not consider substantive objections to testimony prior to trial. See, e.g., Carl Karcher Enterprises Inc. v.

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.

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).

Motorola, Inc. v. Griffiths Electronics, Inc.

317 F.2d 397 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 16, 1963

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the opposition, 132 USPQ 565 and 568. … Inc. v. Mezger Pharmacal Co., Inc., 228 F.2d 243 , 43 CCPA 703, also involved a three-letter suffix, “-fax.”

Sletteland v. Commissioner

43 T.C. 602 · United States Tax Court · Feb 8, 1965

The Board of Tax Appeals (predecessor of this Court) sustained the respondent’s disallowance of the deduction insofar as it was made up of the principal and the interest'accrued up to decedent’s death; and the Board explained … Co. of America v. Beck, 39 Cal. App. 2d 355 , 103 P. 2d 241 .

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.

Application of Arnold N. Johnson

282 F.2d 370 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 10, 1960

Columbia in Petrocarbon Ltd. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed. . In Reiners v.

United States v. Waterhouse

1 Ct. Cust. 353 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1911

Prior to the Ranlett case the principle of segregation therein enunciated seems to have been recognized both by the board and the courts. See United States v. Brewer (92 Fed. Rep., 343); Weil v. United States (115 Fed. … Rep., 592); United States v. Helmrath (135 Fed. Rep., 912); United States. v Myers (140 Fed. Rep., 648). The case of the United States v.

In re Sibley

88 F.2d 960 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1937

Among such authorities are Corona Cord Tire Company v. Dovan Chemical Corporation, 276 U. S. 358 ; United Chromium, Inc. v. … California Spray Chemical Co., 268 Fed. 201 ; Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. American Zylonite Co. et al., 35 Fed. 301 ; King et al. v. Anderson et al., 90 Fed. 500 , and Diversey Corporation v. Hertz, 13 Fed. Supp. 410.

Klipstein v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 510 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1913

Matheson v. United States ( 90 Fed., 276 ); Newman v. Arthur ( 109 U. S., 132 ); Pickhardt v. Merritt ( 132 U. S., 252 ); Cassett v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 465 ; T. D. 32225). … The decision of the board is therefore reversed.