Case law

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).

Dan River Mills, Incorporated v. The Yorke Shirt Corporation

390 F.2d 734 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1968

The registration numbers will be found in the published board opinion. 3 . … Dan River Mills, Inc. v. Preben Mikael Aerendal Mikkelsen, 145 USPQ 295 (1965), involving DANSK FORM, in which there was a dissent.

Vicente v. United States

1 Cl. Ct. 299 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 8, 1982

See Gaskins v. Merit Systems Protec *301 tion Board, 221 Ct.Cl. 918 , Order of October 23, 1979. . … Ramos v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Civil Action No. 81-2524, D.D.C., June 15, 1982.

Phillips/May Corp. v. United States

76 Fed. Cl. 671 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2007

Power Co. v. … In so holding, the Court was guided by Justice Blackmun’s oft-quoted dictum that res judicata should be invoked in such circumstances “only after careful inquiry,” Brown v.

Lacy v. United States

607 F.2d 951 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 17, 1979

On July 8, 1977, this court entered judgment based on a stipulation of settlement in which the United States agreed to pay Scinto and Wilson each $20,000, and Brown $10,000. Scinto v. United States, Ct.Cl. … As noted in Tyson v. United States, 91 Ct.Cl. 139, 141 , 32 F.

M-A-C-O

27 I. & N. Dec. 477 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2018

FOR RESPONDENT: Cristobal Colindres, Esquire, Dallas, Texas BEFORE: Board Panel: COLE and WENDTLAND, Board Members; CROSSETT, Temporary Board Member. … Harmon v.

13-21 312

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jan 29, 2016

See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). The Board finds the Veteran's statements and April 2015 testimony regarding the continuity of his back pain since service to be credible. … See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993) (a claim for an increased evaluation remains viable on appeal when an increase to less than the maximum evaluation is made during the pendency of an appeal).

In re Custer

173 F.2d 226 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 1, 1949

The board agreed with that finding. … Martin v. Chapman and Littleford, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1187, 71 F. (2d) 174, 22 U. S. Pat. Q. 50.

190913-32434

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Oct 30, 2020

See Elias v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 259, 263 (1997). Here, the parties have been separated during the entire appeal period. … The Board notes the Veteran cannot prevail on a claim of hardship when he is receiving additional benefits for his dependents and the apportioned amount is no more than the additional benefits. See Hall v. Brown, 5 Vet.

07-03 436

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 31, 2011

See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250 (2011); AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993); see also Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008). … App. 242, 250 (2011); AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993).

Shun Yuen Hing & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 331 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1922

Smith, Judge, delivered tbe opinion of tbe court: In tbis case as in tbe case of Wing Yee Chong & Co. v. … Tbe decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Power v. United States

18 Ct. Cl. 263 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 19, 1883

And the same views were expressed by this court in 1866 (Carmack et al. v. The United States, 2 C. Cls. … The letter of the Board is dated the 25th of March, and that of the ^Secretary the 2d June.

In re Dalzell

166 F.2d 834 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 10, 1948

Abbott et al. v. Coe, 71 App. D. C. 195, 109 F. (2d) 449, 43 USPQ 267 . … We presume the board agreed with that statement. At any rate, we find nothing wrong with it.

J-R-R-A

26 I. & N. Dec. 609 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2015

FOR RESPONDENT: Kedron Benham, Esquire, Springdale, Arkansas BEFORE: Board Panel: NEAL, Chairman; HOLMES and GREER, Board Members. … Slyusar v.

United States v. Myers & Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 409 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1922

See United States v. Brewer ( 92 Fed. 343 ); Weil v. United States ( 115 Fed. 592 ); United States v. Helmrath ( 135 Fed. 912 ); United States v. Myers ( 140 Fed. 648 ). The case of the United States v. … See also Consolidated Elevator Co. v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 268 ; T. D. 37536), and cases cited. The decision of the board is accordingly affirmed.

Lozano v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 184 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 21, 1991

The Supreme Court held in Office of Personnel Management v. … We hold that the Board did not err in concluding that service connection does not exist for appellant’s hearing loss. Accordingly, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.

Isler v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 340 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1922

—Strauss v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 203, 205 ; T. D. 31946); Isler & Guye v. United States (5 id. 229, 233 ; T. D. 34401); Schoenemann v. United States ( 119 Fed. 584, 586 ). … —-United States v. Veit ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 290 ; T. D. 37540).

Thomas C. Henry, Jr. v. United States Postal Service

Merit Systems Protection Board · Mar 31, 2016

v. … See Brown, 115 M.S.P.R. 609, ¶ 15.

Lord v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 749 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1983

V 1981). … V 1981). Gearinger v. United States, 188 Ct.Cl. 512, 518-19 , 412 F.2d 862, 866 (1969).

Spodek v. United States

51 Fed. Cl. 221 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 10, 2001

On December 19, 1996 the Board docketed the appeal and indicated that under the Board’s rules plaintiffs were required to file a complaint with the Board within thirty days after receipt of the Notice of Docketing, “on or … the Board in dismissing the appeal did so without prejudice, National Electric Coil, 227 Ct.Cl. at 596-97 ; Gregory Lumber Co. v.