Case law

Bakers Franchise Corporation v. Royal Crown Cola Co.

404 F.2d 985 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1969

Suffice it to say that, although we are of the opinion that appellant’s prior pleading was properly admitted and considered by the board, we are also of the opinion that, even absent such an inference as the board may have … Bakers Franchise Corp. v. Marbert Products, Inc., opposition No. 43,665. 3 . Reg. No. 735,768, Aug. 7, 1962.

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.

Saul Bass & Associates v. United States

505 F.2d 1386 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1974

E.g., Banking & Trading Corp. v. Floete, 257 F. 2d 765 (2d Cir.1958) ; Byrne Organization, Inc. et al. v. United States, 152 Ct. Cl. 578, 585 , 287 F. 2d 582, 586 (1961) ; Abbell v. United States, 143 Ct. … Meigs, Inc., v. Empire Petroleum Co. 273 F. 2d 424 (7th Cir. 1960) with National Tea Co. v. Weiss, 341 F. 2d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1965) and Oil Trading Associates, Inc. v. Texas Refining Inc. 303 F. 2d 713 (2d Cir. 1962).

Ishimitsu Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 477 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers held it not to be a crude mineral, and that it was an unmanufactured article. *479 The Iwakami & Co. v. … . & Hall et als. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 363 ; T.

10-29 468

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jun 4, 2015

Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). … See Jensen v. Brown, 19 F.3d 1413, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United States

46 Cust. Ct. 606 · United States Customs Court · Feb 27, 1961

The appraiser found that this merchandise is a “board product” comprehended within the following specification: Board, Products Boards, wood pulp, including beer mat board (not plate-finisbed, super-calendered, friction calendered … Tower & Sons v. United States, 26 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 28, and finds it similar.

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.

National City Bank v. Commissioner

1 B.T.A. 139 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 11, 1924

McGlauflin v. Holman, 1 Wash. St. 239, 24 Pac. 439 ; Schulte v. Schering, 2 Wash. St. 127, 26 Pac. 78 ; Schulte v. Littlejohn, 2 Wash. St. 129, 26 Pac. 79 ; Northcraft v. … The Board is therefore of ’ the opinion that it is not controlling in this case.

Robie v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 612 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 11, 1991

Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171, 173-174 (1991). Under the Colvin definition, the outpatient records were not material. … Oppenheimer v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 370, 372 (1991). See also Thompson, 1 Vet.App. at 253-254 .

Suodor Al-Khair Co - SAKCO for General Trading

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Apr 14, 2015

v. … The 90-day appeal period for filing an appeal to this Board is statutory and may not be 6 waived or extended. See Cosmic Construction Co. v.

GSC Construction, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · May 5, 2016

Taylor Construction Co. v. Barram, 203 F.3d 808, 811-12 (Fed. … Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59402, Appeal of GSC Construction, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.

Rauen v. Aiken

74 F.2d 956 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1935

The board then refers to the decision in Chapman et al. v. Wintroath, supra, In re Fritts, 45 App. D. C. 211, and DeFerranti v. Harmatta, 50 App. D. C. 393, as support for its affirmance of the examiner’s decision. … In particular, the board relies upon the case of Keith v. Land, 55 App. D. C. 398, cited *906 as 1925 C.

United States v. Tampa Box Co.

15 Ct. Cust. 360 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1928

In Peabody v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 354 , T. … See Stein v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 36 , T. D. 31007; Stahel & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 430 , T. D. 39435, and cases therein cited.

SZEGEDI

10 I. & N. Dec. 28 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1962

Bussard v. State, 233 Wis. 11, 288 N.W. 187 (108D). … A similar case is Beauregard v.

Sherman v. Hope

161 F.2d 263 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1947

Mabon v. John Q. Sherman, Etc., Patent Appeal No. 5264, decided concurrently herewith. … One of the earlier patents referred,to in this quotation from the board’s opinion is contained in the record in the Mabon v. Sherman interference hereinbefore referred to.

Cataldo v. Commissioner

60 T.C. 522 · United States Tax Court · Jun 28, 1973

Schmidt v. Commissioner, 272 F. 2d 428 (C.A. 9, 1959), reversing and remanding 28 T.C. 367 (1957); Steiner v. Nelson, 259 F. 2d 853 (C.A. 7, 1958); Bendheim v. … A notice of deficiency which is properly mailed need not be received to be effective (Brown v. Lethert, 360 F. 2d 560 (C.A. 8, 1966); Jack D.

PICHARDO

21 I. & N. Dec. 330 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1996

Guarino v. … V.

Blount, Inc. v. United States

15 Cl. Ct. 146 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 13, 1988

Federal Corp. v. *148 United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 212, 214 (1983). In that connection, Warwick Construction, Inc. v. … Multi-Roof Systems Co. v. United States, 5 Cl.Ct. 245, 248 (1984).

Thomas v. United States

47 Fed. Cl. 560 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2000

Failure of the board to grant full relief where it is mandated by the records change results in [a claim].”); Bruton v. … .”); Doggett v.

Ilan Fouks v. Department of Veterans Affairs

2015 MSPB 37 · Merit Systems Protection Board · May 22, 2015

See Simmons v. … Generally, a reduction in grade that an employee accepts voluntarily is not within the Board’s jurisdiction. Harris v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 114 M.S.P.R. 239, ¶ 8 (2010); see Elmore v.