Case law

United States v. Horrax

1 Ct. Cust. 142 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1911

Magone v. Wiederer ( 159 U. S., 555 ), Meyer et al. v. Cadwalader (89 Fed. Rep., 963). … Morrison et al. v. United States (107 Fed. Rep., 113). As these views seem to us to be decisive of the case, the decision of the board is affirmed.

Comas, Inc. v. Commissioner

23 T.C. 8 · United States Tax Court · Oct 8, 1954

In Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U. … S. 716 , the Court was called on to consider the question of how to resolve possible conflicts that might arise in cases pending before the Board at the time of the enactment of the Eevenue Act of 1926 which the Board decided

Hutton v. United States

154 Ct. Cl. 34 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 7, 1961

Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82 ; Culligan v. United States, 107 Ct. Cl. 222 , cert. denied, 330 U.S. 848 ; Bryan v. United States, 128 Ct. Cl. 541 . … Atkinson v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 585 ; Misuraca v. United States, 135 Ct. Cl. 387 ; DeBusk v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 790 , cert. denied 350 U.S. 988 .

Hickok v. Commissioner

32 T.C. 80 · United States Tax Court · Apr 13, 1959

In LeTulle v. … In Bazley v.

Strobe Data, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jan 5, 2016

The government's additional suggestion that appellant may not challenge the Board's jurisdiction of its own claim is also incorrect. See Universal Canvas, Inc. v. Stone, 975 F.2d 847, 850 (Fed. … Data, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.

Gelco Builders & Burjay Construction Corp. v. The United States

369 F.2d 992 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 16, 1966

Hoi-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, supra. Accordingly, the Board's decision with respect thereto is not subject to Wunderlich Act finality, 68 Stat. 81 , 41 U.S.C. §§ 321-322 (1958 ed.). … The Board denied the motion.

Johnston v. Commissioner

14 B.T.A. 605 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 6, 1928

In Mesce v. United States, 64 Ct. Cls. 481, the ordinance passed by the city council, of the City of Chicago authorized the board of local improvements “to employ” real estate experts. … Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514 ; Lyons v. Reinecke, 10 Fed. (2d) 3; Mesce v. United States, supra; R. Clipston Sturgis, 10 B. T. A. 1394; George W. Fuller, 9 B. T. A. 108; Fred H. Tibbetts, supra; Emma B.

In re Bowen

492 F.2d 859 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1974

complying with the board’s statement, thus placing claim 2 in condition for allowance. … See In re Shokal et al., 1957 C.D. 234; General Electric Co. v. Wabash Co., 37 USPQ 468 .

201113-127316

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Mar 31, 2021

Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 447-48 (1995). … See id. at 239 (citing Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995)).

A.B.G. Instrument & Engineering, Inc. v. United States

593 F.2d 394 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 21, 1979

’s favor, S&E Contractors, Inc. v. … Co. v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 726 , 499 F.2d 639 (1974). That condition has not been met here.

United States v. Hanover Vulcanite Co.

4 Ct. Cust. 503 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1913

This case in principle is within the rule laid down by this court in United States v. Eytinge ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 266 ; T. D. 33486). … The conclusion of the board was sustained in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New Yok. See United States v. Knauth, apparently only reported in T. D. 27769.

Bell v. United States

32 Fed. Cl. 259 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 1994

Dzialo v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 506, 511 , 677 F.2d 873, 875-76 (1982) (citing Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct.Cl. 1, 19, 24, 35 , 310 F.2d 381, 392, 396, 402 (1962), cert, denied sub nom. Lipp v. … Third, Sanders v. United States is distinguishable.

United States v. Kraemer & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 294 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1914

And this view has since been adopted by the board. See Abstract 32185 (T. D.. 33963). Use generally is a controlling consideration. See Illfelder v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 100 ; T. D. 31115). … The decision of the board is reversed.

Rubinstein v. Commissioner

41 B.T.A. 220 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 30, 1940

He was justified in so holding; for this Board had held in Seymour H. … Under date of December 19, 1939, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed an unreported memorandum decision of this Board (Docket No. 92719) in McBrier v.

John O. Paivinen v. Eugene A. Sands

399 F.2d 697 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1968

That decision is the result of the board’s consideration of the case on remand from this court in the first appeal, Paivinen v. Sands, 339 F.2d 217 , 52 CCPA 906, 1030 (1964). … Conner v. Joris, 241 F.2d 944 , 44 CCPA 772; Sellner v. Solloway, 267 F.2d 321 , 46 CCPA 897; Paivinen v. Sands, supra.

Gordon v. United States

649 F.2d 837 · United States Court of Claims · May 6, 1981

S. 102, 126 (1974); Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 444 U. S. 460, 463 (1980). See also Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U. S. 820, 824-825, 834 (1976), and cases cited; Matson Navigation Co. v. … Brown v. General Services Administration, supra, is therefore distinguishable.

First Bond & Mortg. Co. v. Commissioner

27 B.T.A. 430 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 22, 1932

The lien of the state for taxes attaches by a valid assessment of the property, Florida East Coast Fruit Land Co. v. Mitchell, 80 Fla. 291 ; 85 Son. 661; State v. Beardsley, 94 Sou. … Aiken v. United States (U. S. Dist. Ct., S. Dist. Fla., Oct. 12, 1932).

Application of Abram H. Blaisdell

242 F.2d 779 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1957

The board adequately presented the background of this proceeding as follows: "The instant application was involved in an interference No. 83,-587, Blaisdell v. Allen v. … He cites General Motors Corp. v.

In re Altenpohl

500 F.2d 1151 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 15, 1974

Shull Perforating Co., Inc. v. Cavins, 94 F.2d 357 (9th Cir. 1938); Weller Mfg. Co. v. Wen Products, Inc., 121 F.Supp. 198 (N.D.Ill.1954), aff’d, 231 F.2d 795 (7th Cir. 1956); Vernay Laboratories, Inc. v. … . & Pat.App.1974); and International Paper Co. v. Fiberboard Corp., 181 PTCJ A-9 (D.Del.1974).

IGE

20 I. & N. Dec. 880 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1994

Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988); INS v. Jong Ha Wang, supra. The Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the alien has made out a prima facie case for relief. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, (1992); INS v. … Onyia v. INS, 15 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1994); Osuchukwu v. INS, supra. In a case such as the one before us, the Board must make both a factual and a legal determination.