Case law

Beggy v. Commissioner

23 T.C. 736 · United States Tax Court · Jan 27, 1955

The payment was authorized at a meeting of the board of directors held' January 17, 1950. … Willkie v. Commissioner, 127 F. 2d 953 , certiorari denied 317 U. S. 659 ; Carragan v. Commissioner, 197 F. 2d 246 ; Poorman v. Commissioner, 131 F. 2d 946, 949 ; Nickelsburg v. Commissioner, 154 F. 2d 70, 71 .

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).

United States v. Hudson Forwarding & Shipping Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 188 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1926

In Sheldon & Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. … (Pickhardt v. Merritt, 132 U. S. 252 ; Newman v. Arthur, 109 U. S. 132 ; United States v. Georgia Pulp & Paper Manufacturing Co., 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 410 ; T. D. 32998.)

Hodakievic v. United States

6 Cl. Ct. 499 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 29, 1984

To prevail, plaintiff must show by cogent and clearly convincing evidence that the board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or unlawful. Horn v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 667, 668 , 650 F.2d 286 (1980); Sanders v. … Horn v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 18, 24 , 671 F.2d 1328, 1332 (1982). Plaintiff also argues the correction board improperly acted as a “super selection board.”

Smith v. Hayward

176 F.2d 914 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

S. 358, 383 ; McKee v. Stevens, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 701, 79 F. (2d) 914, 27 USPQ 358 ; Croskey v. Atterbury, 9 App. D. C. 207; Bogoslowsky v. Huse, 31 C. C. P. A. … Josserand v. Taylor, Jr., 31 C. C. P, A. (Patents) 709, 138 F. (2d) 58, 59 USPQ 140 .

Burton v. United States

22 Cl. Ct. 706 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 27, 1991

Japanese War Notes Claimants Ass’n v. … Release from active duty without physical examination board review is insufficient, in and of itself, to commence the limitations period. Id., citing Friedman v.

Sack v. Commissioner

36 B.T.A. 595 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 5, 1937

, Petitioner, v. … ; and, therefore, that the Board has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Katherine G. Cooper v. United States

113 Fed. Cl. 165 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 2013

See Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. … Cooper’s complaint must be dismissed on the ground that she failed to first seek such relief from a competent military board before filing suit in this court. In Chambers v.

Pratt v. Derwinski

3 Vet. App. 269 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 24, 1992

Just as in Goodman v. … The Court expects that the BVA will reexamine the evidence of record, seek any other evidence the Board feels is necessary, and issue a timely, well-supported decision in this case.” Fletcher v.

David A. Andrews v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 22, 2021

On the one hand, the M21-1 is not binding on either the Board or this Court; we thus held in Overton v. … In Healev v.

Jeffrey v. United States

127 Ct. Cl. 231 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 5, 1954

Jackson v. United States, 121 C. Cls. 405 ; Egan v. United States, 123 C. Cls. 460 . … Garcia v. United States, 123 C. Cls. 722 ; Gregory v. United States, 123 C. Cls. 794 . We see no procedural defect in the history of the plaintiff’s case. See O'Brien v. United States, 124 C. Cls. 655 .

Margolis v. Banner

599 F.2d 435 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1979

. § 102 (g), to the Board of Appeals. … See Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, supra; Maryland v.

Tele-Consultants, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jun 9, 2014

We held that, under Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, 660 F.3d 1346, 1353-55 (Fed. … A Board Rule 30 dismissal is discretionary upon the Board. Gov't Technical Servs., LLC, ASBCA No. 57744, 13 BCA if 35,345.

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.

BECKFORD

22 I. & N. Dec. 1216 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2000

Dissenting Opinions: SCHMIDT, Chairman; joined by VACCA, Board Member; ROSENBERG, Board Member. … See Henderson v.

190131-2127

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Oct 31, 2019

Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 158 (1993). … See, e.g., Eddy v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 52 (1996); Meyer v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 425 (1996); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36 (1994).

AAA Pharmacy, Inc. v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 321 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 20, 2012

RCFC 12(h)(3); see also Tindle v. United States, 56 Fed.Cl. 337, 341 (2003). The United States Court of Federal Claims “is a court of limited jurisdiction.” Fullard, 78 Fed.Cl. at 299 (citing Brown v. … Pikulin v. United States, 97 Fed.Cl. 71, 75 (2011); see also Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“Bivens actions ... lie outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.”).

KRONEGOLD

25 I. & N. Dec. 157 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2009

Connolly, Appellate Counsel BEFORE: Board Panel: HOLMES and HESS, Board Members; KENDALL CLARK, Temporary Board Member. … Id.; see also Matter of Truong, 24 I&N Dec. 52, 54 (BIA 2006); Matter of Ramos, 23 I&N Dec. 843, 845, 847-48 (BIA 2005); Matter of Gadda, 23 I&N Dec. 645, 648 (BIA 2003), aff’d, Gadda v.

Dan D. Diamond v. The United States

427 F.2d 1246 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 12, 1970

Diamond v. … In Merson v.

American Seating Co. v. Commissioner

14 B.T.A. 328 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 16, 1928

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U. S. 170 ; Meyer Jewelry Co., 3 B. T. A. 1319; Independent Brewing Co. of Pittsburgh, 4 B. T. A. 870; New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Ry. Co., 6 B. T. A. 436; Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. … In the instant proceeding the petitioner rested its case entirely upon the facts found by the Board in the earlier decision. Pursuing the course approved by the Board in Union Metal Mfg. Co., 4 B. T.