Case law

Jones v. United States

617 F.2d 233 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 19, 1980

E.g., Boyce v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 57 , 543 F.2d 1290 (1976); Power v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 126 , 531 F.2d 505 (1976). … Dittmore-Freimuth Corp. v. United States, 182 Ct.

George Duggan v. Department of Defense

Merit Systems Protection Board · May 3, 2023

appellant of the opportunity to have his case decided on the merits.  5 Brown v. … Schnell v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 673 F. App’x 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  6 v.

13-22 123

Board of Veterans' Appeals · May 29, 2015

See Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88, 93 (1996); Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 405, 407-08 (1994); Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991). … Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993).

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.

Ahal Al-Sara Group for Trading v. American Flash, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jan 23, 2023

LLC v. … Grp. v.

Bernhardt v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 36 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1913

The board found that the appellants had failed to establish by a preponderance of the testimony that the classification made by the importer was incorrect. Under the previous holdings of this court in Knauth v. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. United States

553 F.2d 651 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 20, 1977

See ITT Arctic Services, Inc. v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 743 , 524 F.2d 680 (1975). … Co. v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 164 , 455 F.2d 527 (1972); and Dynamics Corp. of America v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 62 , 389 F.2d 424 (1968).

In re Sasse

629 F.2d 675 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 17, 1980

This appeal is from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejections of claims 1-13 in appellants’ application serial No. 459,158, filed April 8, 1974, … ) remains unaltered and no further reconsideration with respect thereto will be entertained. *680 OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 135 (b) We set forth the judicial and legislative history of 35 U.S.C. § 135 (b) at length in Corbett v.

Boeing v. Commissioner

46 B.T.A. 492 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 9, 1942

In Moise v. Burnet, 52 Fed. (2d) 1071, this provision of the 1926 Act was considered by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. … Kottemann v. Commissioner, 81 Fed. (2d) 621. No claim was asserted by the respondent at or before the hearing.

Barber-Colman Co. v. Overhead Door Corporation

65 F.2d 147 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1933

A.) 196 F. 168 (“Carroms” for a board for playing games); Globe-Wernicke Co. v. Brown et al. (C. C.) 121 F. 185 (“Elastic” on sectional bookcases or filing cabinets); Nashville Syrup Co. v. Coca Cola Co. (C. C. … Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 311, 323 , 20 L.

In Re Ridgway

76 F.2d 602 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1935

(Patents) 1046; and General Electric Co. v. De Forest Radio Co. (C. C. … We find no error in the decision of the Board of Appeals, and the same is affirmed. Affirmed.

Allan Robert Andrew Beeber and Daniel S. Spechler v. Lester C. Krogh and Richard E. Brink

403 F.2d 743 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1969

On that point, we consider the board to be in error for the reasons already stated. Appellees further rely on Thurston v. Wulff, 35 CCPA 794, 164 F.2d 612 (1947) and Vandenberg v. … In Patterson v. Hauck, we pointed out how the board there drew unduly rigid principles of law from Thurston v. Wulff, and we think appellees have fallen into the same error here.

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.

North American Mercantile Co. v. United States

28 Cust. Ct. 514 · United States Customs Court · Jan 7, 1952

the imported clams involved in United States v. … Mutual Supply Co. et al. and Mutual Supply Co. et al. v. United States, Reap.

ITT Arctic Services, Inc. v. United States

524 F.2d 680 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 22, 1975

Corp. v. United States, 201 Ct. … Without such specific supported demonstration of factual Board error the Board’s statement of facts will be accepted. Jefferson Constr. Co. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 581, 589 , 368 F. 2d 247, 252 (1966).

Hubert M. Biggs v. United States

287 F.2d 908 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 1, 1961

This is a suit by wage board employees •of the Department of the Navy to recover overtime pay. … United States, 121 Ct.Cl. 94, 98-99 ; Sirmon v. Cron & Gracey Drilling Corp., D.C., 44 F.Supp. 29, 31 ; Dollar v. Caddo River Lbr. Co., D.C., 43 F.Supp. 822 . Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover.

Avant Assessment, LLC

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Sep 28, 2016

See Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F .2d 759, 764 (Fed. Cir. 1987). … the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58866, Appeal of Avant Assessment, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.

Bodine v. United States

14 Cl. Ct. 661 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 27, 1988

The Board, in Ketchem v. DOT, [12 M.S.P.R. at 2] at 9, took official notice of the fact that an illegal PATCO strike began on August 3, 1981 and continued at least through August 6, 1981. Further, in Schapansky v. … In light of the above, the holding of the Board in Schapansky , and because removal has been held by American Postal Workers Union v.

Application of Francis J. Honn and Willard M. Sims

364 F.2d 454 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 4, 1966

In Lawson v. … As is evident from the excerpt from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences which is quoted in Lawson v.

Kramer Trenton Co. v. Carl O. Walcutt, Dba the Winterizer Company

408 F.2d 479 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1969

In its opinion the board noted certain testimony of appellant-opposer’s witness that the marks were used on competitive goods. … Shoe Corp. of America v. Juvenile Shoe Corp. of America, 266 F.2d 793 , 46 CCPA 868, (1959) ; Lever Brothers Co. v. Riodela Chemical Co., 41 F.2d 408 , 17 CCPA 1272 (1930) ; The School Mfg. Co., Inc. v.