Case law

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.

Schwartz v. United States

181 F. Supp. 408 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 2, 1960

After plaintiff’s suspension on March 12, 1954, he was given a 'hearing before the Security Hearing Board on July 8, 1954. The Board rendered its adverse decision on August 31, 1954. … His time was undoubtedly taken up in the effort to secure favorable action, by the Board.

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.

Henry A. Wess, Inc. v. United States

57 Cust. Ct. 139 · United States Customs Court · Aug 4, 1966

‘See United States v. Astra Bentwood Furniture Co., 28 CCPA 205, C.A.D. 147, and Cavalier Shipping Company, Inc. v. *141 United States, 39 Cust. Ct. 219 , C.D. 1932. … board after the posting period.

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

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.

Hampton v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 350 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1927

This protest was, in due course, referred by the collector to the Board of General Appraisers, and the board, General Appraiser Brown dissenting, overruled the protest and sustained the assessment by the collector. … To the same effect are Field v. Clark, supra, and The Abby Dodge, 223 U. S. 166, 176 . In the celebrated case of Brown v.

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 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.

Flower v. Commissioner

61 T.C. 140 · United States Tax Court · Oct 31, 1973

Brown, 40 T.C. 861 (1963); and also compare Estate of John F. Shea, 57 T.C. 15 (1971). In Vaaler v. United States, 454 F.2d 1120 (C.A. 8, 1972), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit also adopted this principle. … See Burnett 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.

Smith v. United States

168 Ct. Cl. 545 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 11, 1964

Board. … Examination showed a 36 percent enlargement of his heart, a marked disparity in the size and function of his kidneys (the right kidney was 6 cm. in length v. 13 cm. for the left kidney), and an impairment in both.

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.

Judd v. Secretary of Nevada

816 F. Supp. 2d 1383 · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · Oct 7, 2011