Case law

FICALORA

11 I. & N. Dec. 592 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1966

: - The foregoing regulations have the force and effect of law (Di Mimi v. (1M, 96 F.2d 92). ' They are binding on all the parties here concerned. … The same is true' of his assertion that this Board should do so now.'

Parker v. Ballantine

101 F.2d 220 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1939

(Patents) *803 830, 81 F. (2d) 242; Stafford Co. v. Coldwell-Gildard Co. et al., 202 Fed. 744 . See also In re Williams, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1019, 75 F. (2d) 520. … In Stafford Co. v.

Snow v. Commissioner

31 T.C. 585 · United States Tax Court · Dec 23, 1958

We think that the legal connotation of the word “ordinary,” as defined in Welch v. … Respondent urges that the instant case is controlled by McDonald v. Commissioner, 323 U. S. 57 (1944), and Revere Racing Association v. Scanlon, 232 F. 2d 816 (C. A. 1, 1956).

Bromley Contracting Co. v. United States

652 F.2d 70 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 13, 1981

Plaintiff appeals from a decision of the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) denying its claim for $15,000 compensation due to allegedly defective Government drawings. … Plaintiff appealed to the Board, which denied the claim on February 26, 1975.

Strahle v. United States

602 F.2d 344 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 18, 1979

In Moser v. … Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947); Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389 (1917); Operational Manuals, Inc. v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 854 (1974); Putnam Mills Corp. v. United States, 202 Ct.

United States v. Lyon

4 Ct. Cust. 438 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1913

More in point is Magone v. Wiederer ( 159 U. … Richard & Co. v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 306 ; T. D. 32587); United States v. Lyon & Healy ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 84 ; T. D. 33366); Athenia Steel & Wire Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 494 ; T.

Rose Hills Memorial Park Ass'n v. United States

463 F.2d 425 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1972

Despite the fact that the certificate holders were not shareholders, the Tax Court characterized the transfers as contributions to equity capital, citing Brown Shoe Co. v. … This is quite different from Brown in which, “If the stipulated price was paid, the Brown family would forever lose all rights to the income and properties of the company.” 380 U.S. at 569 , 85 S.Ct. at 1165 .

Taylor v. United States

163 F. Supp. 652 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1958

Wales v. United States, 132 C. Cls. 765 ; Beamish v. United States, 130 C. Cls. 767 ; and Holliday v. United States, 128 C. Cls. 647 . … Furlong v. United States, 138 C. Cls. 843 (1957), and Rosnick v. United States, 132 C. Cls. 1 (1955). There is, however, nothing that would lead us to such a *130 conclusion.

Barbara Kinnard v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Merit Systems Protection Board · Apr 30, 2024

Brown v. Office of Personnel Management, 86 M.S.P.R. 417, ¶ 8 (2000). … Trinkl v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 727 F. App’x 1007, 1010 (Fed.

Burlington Venetian Blind Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 374 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1911

The board, on appeal, overruled the protest and sustained the assessment. … Stern et al v. United States (105 Fed. Rep., 937); Hiller et al v. United States (106 Fed. Rep. 73).

Amaratek

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

There, the Board denied recovery of the cost of the time and efforts of in-house counsel. Id. at 119,461. Nor does Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. Goldin, 16 F.3d 1177 (Fed. … Board Rule 12.2(d).  For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

In re Allatt

121 F.2d 545 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1941

Appellant, proceeding under Patent Office rule 42, elected to prosecute the claims in group I, retaining those in group II for the purpose of appeal to the board. … The Supreme Court of the United States in its decision in the case of Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.

Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Quaker Oil Corp.

453 F.2d 1296 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 20, 1972

McCormick & Co., Inc., v. Summers, 53 CCPA 851, 354 F. 2d 668 , 148 USPQ 272 (1966); Roselux Chemical Co., Inc. v. Parsons Ammonia Co., Inc., 49 CCPA 931, 299 F. 2d 855 , 132 USPQ 627 (1962); DeWalt, Inc. v. … See, e.g., Roselux Chemical Co., Inc. v. Parsons Ammonia Co., Inc., supra.

Stanley v. Commissioner

81 T.C. 634 · United States Tax Court · Sep 26, 1983

Brown v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 116, 119 (1968), and cases cited therein. … Brown v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. at 119 . This must be determined under a uniform Federal standard. Stanley v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 555, 562 (1966).

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Oct 26, 2021

Micro Motion Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., 894 F.2d 1318, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)). … Sentis Grp., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 763 F.3d 919, 926 (8th Cir. 2014). In addition to relevance, discovery can be limited by proportionality.

Mattor v. Coolegem

530 F.2d 1391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1976

As we stated in Koval v. … See Land v. Regan, 342 F.2d 92 , 52 CCPA 1048, 144 U.S.P.Q. 661 (1965).

Bielec v. United States

456 F.2d 690 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1972

Harris v. United States, 153 Ct. Cl. 425 (1961). … See Ganse v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 183, 186 , 376 F. 2d 900 (1967); Price v. United States, 112 Ct. Cl. 198, 200 , 80 F. Supp. 542, 543 (1948); Coleman, v. United States, 100 Ct. Cl. 41 (1943); Dvorkin v.

Lenderman v. Principi

3 Vet. App. 491 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 20, 1992

The Secretary further argues that the Board did not consider whether appellant was entitled to unemployability, because he had not raised the issue before the Board. This Court held in Proscelle v. … On remand the Board must consider whether appellant meets the appropriate criteria. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321 , 3.341, 4.16(b) (1991); Mingo v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 51, 53-54 (1992).

Daniels v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 6, 2022

Christian v. United States, 337 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Hary v. United States, 618 F.2d 704, 707 (Ct. Cl.1980)); Rogers v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 757, 768 (2016); see also Driscoll v. … V.

DeWitt v. United States

204 Ct. Cl. 274 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 17, 1974

II In Commissioner v. … Fox, supra; and Apt v.