Case law

Hillcrest Terrace Corporation v. Brown

137 F.2d 663 · Emergency Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1943

In its general scheme of rent control it follows the pattern of the rent regulations considered by us in Chatlos v. Brown, Em. App., 136 F.2d 490 , decided May 28, 1943, and Lakemore Company v. Brown, Em. … App., 137 F.2d 355 , Wilson and Bennett v. Brown, Em.App., 137 F.2d 348 , and Taylor v. Brown, Em.App., 137 F.2d 654 , decided by us July 15, 1943.

Northwood Apartments, Inc. v. Brown

137 F.2d 809 · Emergency Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 1943

Chatios v. Brown, Em.App., 136 F.2d 490 , decided May 28, 1943; Lakemore Company v. Brown, Em. App., 137 F.2d 355 , and Taylor v. Brown, Em.App., 137 F.2d 654 , decided July 15, 1943. … Hillcrest Terrace Corp. v. Brown, 137 F.2d 663 , decided by us July 27, 1943.

Brown v. United States

141 Ct. Cl. 557 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 5, 1958

A disposition board on May 1,1947, recommended that the petitioner appear before an Army Retiring Board. … Suter v. United States, 139 C. Cls. 446 , certiorari denied, 355 U. S. 926 .

United States v. Brown & Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 47 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1920

United States v. Salomon ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 246 ; T. D. 31277); Simpson v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 222 ; T. D. 31952); United States v. Maine Central Railroad Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 114 ; T. D. 36427). … See also Andrews & Co. et al. v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 68 ; T. D. 37199).

Brown v. United States

227 Ct. Cl. 786 · United States Court of Claims · May 29, 1981

Carruth v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 422 , 627 F.2d 1068 (1980); Walton v. United States, 213 Ct.Cl. 755 (1977); and Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599 , 372 F.2d 1002 (1967).

Brown v. United States

30 Fed. Cl. 23 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 4, 1993

Plaintiffs point to 14 C.F.R. § 77.13 as prohibiting construction of objects above a 100-1 slope, which would be at 11.3' AGL at the Brown-Newman border and 31.3' AGL at the Brown-Plaza border. … East Haven v.

Harlem Metal Corp. v. Brown

136 F.2d 242 · Emergency Court of Appeals · May 28, 1943

Brown v. United States

76 Fed. Cl. 762 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 14, 2007

Adkins v. … In Fiebelkom v.

Michael T. Acciola v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 320 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 5, 2008

See 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(2), (22), (24), 1110; Mercado-Martinez v. West, 11 Vet.App. 415, 419 (1998); Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 466, 470 (1995). … See Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995).

Brown v. United States

4 Ct. Cl. 223 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1868

The vouchers themselves are irregular: some of them are in the name of William E, Brown, others in the name of Kirkham & Brown; and if they were set up here as express contracts, would only support actions iiu the name of

Brown v. United States

195 Ct. Cl. 103 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1971

Brown, 0 962 620. … Smith v. United States, 168 Ct. Cl. 545, 553 (1964); Farrar v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 1008, 1034 , 358 F. 2d 965 (1965); Hoppock v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 1147, 1167 (1966). 2.

Brown v. United States

101 Ct. Cl. 427 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1943

Mumma v. United States, 99 C. Cls. 261 , decided February 1, 1943.

Waterhouse v. Principi

3 Vet. App. 473 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 16, 1992

In Simon v. … See 38 U.S.C. § 511 ; Smith v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 267, 272-73 (1991); Schaper v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 430, 433-34 (1991).

Brown v. United States

4 Cl. Ct. 175 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 22, 1983

. § 815 , was recommended over article 32 court-martial proceedings, “provided that COL Brown agrees to immediate retirement.” … The board’s deliberations were not recorded. At the conclusion of its proceedings, the board “determined that Colonel Roy A. Brown did not serve satisfactorily in his highest and present temporary grade, Colonel (0-6).”

Brown & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1922

See Wing Yee Chong & Co. v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 329 ; T. D. 39142). The assessment of the additional tax of $1.10 per gallon is specifically challenged by the protest. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Brown & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 146 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1919

In fact, so far as appears from the board’s decision in that case, the article which the board there had under consideration was not subjected to the same treatment as that applied to the merchandise here in issue; that is … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore reversed.

Brown & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 26 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 17, 1923

Tower Manufacturing & Novelty Co. et al. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 267 ; T. D. 35478). Also, there was a similar holding in National Hat Pin Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 435 ; T. D. 34971). … ■The judgment' of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Kennedy v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 24, 2018

Corp. v. United States, 100 Fed. … See Barnick v. United States, 591 F.3d 1372, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[W]here evidence could have been submitted to a corrections board and was not, the evidence is properly excluded by the Court of Federal Claims.”).

Brown v. United States

1 Ct. Cl. 307 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1865

On the 1st of July, 1861, Albert Brown, of Kingston, N. H., entered into a contract with Major Morris S. … It is very clear that the United States is concluded by the inspection and approval of Patten, unless deceit and fraud were practised on him by Brown, or there -was collusion between Brown and the inspector to defraud the

Bogart Packing Co. v. Brown

138 F.2d 422 · Emergency Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1943

It can be said of that, as we said of the letter .considered by us in Frank v. … United States v.