Case law

Application of Klaus Heinz Risse, Ulrich Horlein and Wolfgang Wirth. Application of Ulrich Horlein, Wolfgang Wirth and Klaus Heinz Risse

378 F.2d 948 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1967

The three cases cited by the board may readily be distinguished. Watson v. … In re Yale, supra; Smith v. Watson, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 52 , 218 F.2d 863 , (D.C.Cir.1955). The board has expressed three objections to this affidavit.

United States v. Snow's United States Sample Express Co.

6 Ct. Cust. 477 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers held that they were not so dutiable, and the Government brings this appeal. This provision for upholstery goods was under consideration in Carter v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. … The settled rule, which is sustained by the authorities cited in the Government’s brief — Maddock v. Magone ( 152 U. S., 368 ), Sonn v. Magone ( 159 U. S., 417 ), United States v.

Jacobs v. Buxton

135 F.2d 237 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1943

The board did not apply the doctrine of Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D. … Rowe v. Holtz, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 970, 55 F. (2d) 468, 12 U. S. P. Q. 234; Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 11 App. D. C. 264; Electro Metallurgical Company et al. v. Krupp Nirosta Co., Inc., 33 F. Supp. 324 , 45 U. S. P.

National Steel and Shipbuilding Company v. The United States

419 F.2d 863 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1969

Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. United States, supra, n. 11; Thompson v. United States, 124 F.Supp. 645, 649-650 , 130 Ct.Cl. 1, 7-9 (1954); Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. v. United States, supra, n. 9; Chalender v. … McGraw & Co. v.

William Green Construction Co. v. United States

477 F.2d 930 · United States Court of Claims · May 11, 1973

Co. v. United States, 200 Ct. … The time-limit for appeals to contract appeals boards is not beyond enlargement (M aney Aircraft Parts, Inc. v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 159 , 453 F. 2d 1260 (1972); Monroe M. Tapper & Associates v.

Besal Al-Reeh Company

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Sep 23, 2014

Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 811F.2d586, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "[T]he CDA also requires that all claims be submitted to the [CO] for a decision." James M Ellett Construction Co. v. … Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals of Contract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the Armed Services Board

Application of Schenectady Varnish Company, Inc

280 F.2d 169 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1960

Inc. v. Watson, D.C.D.C.1957, 156 F.Supp. 161 , affirmed 1958, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 299 , 258 F.2d 151 .” … The board appears to be correct in stating that :“It is .questionable that applicant has used the mark on synthetic resins since 1917, * * The board properly noted that “if applicant ultimately prevails in this case, the

Luff v. United States

100 F. Supp. 925 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 6, 1951

Robert Peysert et al. v. The United States, 41 C. Cls. 311 ; Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Commission et al., 306 U. S. 56, 60 ; Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, 316 U. … That Board properly dismissed the appeal because it was filed too late.

A.T.I. TACOSE S.C.a R.L.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jan 4, 2017

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A material fact is one which may make a difference in the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). … Hamm & Assocs., Inc. v. England, 379 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Robins Maint., Inc. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1254, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Marshall Field & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 191 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1914

The opinion of the board indicates that there were 27 protests, 20 of which were abandoned. All the protests were overruled by the board. At the hearing there the importers first called Mr. … Downing v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 473 ; T. D. 33043). *196 As was held in Lazarus v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 508 ; T.

Rice & Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 165 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1920

Upon the general principles above discussed see: Arthur v. Morgan ( 112 U. S., 495 ); Schell's Executors v. Fauche ( 138 U. S., 562 ); Carter v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 64 ; T. D. 31033); Lichtenstein v. … D. 31105); United States v. Stirn ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 140 ; T. D. 34191); United States v. Harlan et al. ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 236 ; T. D. 37947); Shaw v. United States ( 122 Fed., 443 ). In Greeley’s Administrator v.

McNEIL

11 I. & N. Dec. 378 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1965

• Haan v. Landon, 219 F.2d 404 (9th Cir., 1955), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 350 II.8. 990 (1956) ; Bhagat Singh V. McGrath, 104 F.26 122,123 (9th Cir., 1939); et McConnell v. … Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302 (1955): Under the circumstances the Board Should proceed to a final de- cision based on the present record.

In re Stanton

86 F.2d 337 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1936

C. 286, 270 Fed. 704 ; Dobson v. Lees, 137 U. S. 258 ; Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Look Co., 150 U. S. 38 . The Board of Appeals was of opinion that rejected claim 1 was typical of the rejected claims. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Nichols

171 F.2d 300 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1948

See also Chisholm-Byder Co., Inc. v. Buck, 65 F. (2d) 735, 736, (C. C. A. 4th 1933), 18 U. S. Pat. Q. 31. … The following statement appearing in the case of Black-Clawson Co. v. Centrifugal Engineering & Patents Corporation, 83 F. (2d) 116 (C. C.

Baritsky v. Principi

4 Vet. App. 41 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 13, 1993

See Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140, 145 (1991). … Thus if the BVA did reopen, “[a] reopening was inappropriate here, and, had an error been alleged in the Board’s ensuing review process, such error would be considered harmless.” Kehoskie v.

RAMIREZ-VARGAS

24 I. & N. Dec. 599 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2008

Cornwell, Assistant Chief Counsel BEFORE: Board Panel: COLE, PAULEY, and HESS, Board Members. … Gonzales v. Department of Homeland Security, 508 F.3d 1227, 1242 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.

Altman & Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 315 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

The board held the waists should be assessed as entireties.. In United States v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

CRF v. United States

624 F.2d 1054 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 18, 1980

Corp. v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 858, 861 (1974); Gresham & Co. v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 97 , 470 F.2d 542 (1972). … Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).

191204-125447

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jun 30, 2021

See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). The Board must consider all lay (non-expert) and medical evidence in evaluating a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). … See Harris v. West, 203 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000). When a claimant was not examined on entrance into a particular period of service, the presumption of soundness does not attach. See Crowe v. Brown, 7 Vet.

Stanley Co. of Am. v. Commissioner

26 B.T.A. 705 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 26, 1932

If the aforesaid order of the Board (attached as Exhibit A) is a bar to the right of this petitioner in this proceeding of seeking a redetermination of the tax liability of said Stanley Realty Company on the merits, the Board … Company o’f America as ’transferee, the petitioner herein, is ’foreclosed by the aforesaid order ’of the Board in the case of Stanley Realty Company v.