Case law

Deason v. United States

57 Fed. Cl. 266 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 16, 2003

Boyle v. United States, 200 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2000). In making this determination, “pleadings drafted by pro se plaintiffs are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.” Thomas v. … The effect of proceedings before a corrections board on the accrual of a military pay case was recently addressed by the Federal Circuit in Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed.Cir.2003).

12-13 889

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 2, 2018

See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). … App. 370, 374 (2002) (tinnitus); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 405 (1995) (flatfoot).

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.

The Sithe Group, LLC, dba TSG Industries

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Apr 3, 2024

Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389, 1390-91 (Fed. Cir. 1982). Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction for any appeal that is 7 untimely filed outside the 90-day period. … According to the CDA, “a contractor may appeal a Government claim to the appropriate board without submitting a claim of its own to the [contracting officer].” Garrett v. General Elec. Co., 987 F.2d 747, 749 (Fed.

In re Aller

220 F.2d 454 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1955

Co. v. Coe, 69 App. D. C. 217, 99 F. (2d) 986; Allen et al. v. Coe, 77 App. D. C. 324, 135 F. (2d) 11. … The Board of Appeals affirmed this ground of rejection.

Application of Manuel F. Leonor

395 F.2d 801 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1968

Since the board’s decision violates the intent and spirit of 35 U.S.C. § 103 , we reverse. … Indeed, this seems to be a clear case in which the examiner and the board were unable “to resist the temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue.” Graham v.

McMILLAN

17 I. & N. Dec. 605 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1981

In Palmer v. … Under the rule of Palmer v.

200305-67997

Board of Veterans' Appeals · May 29, 2020

Thus, as the preponderance of the probative evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. … The Board notes that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997).

PICHARDO

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

Guarino v. … V.

In re Eitzen

86 F.2d 411 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1936

Upon appeal the Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the examiner rejecting' said claims, and from such decision of the board this appeal was taken. … Robbins v. Steinbart, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1069, 57 F. (2d) 378. We find no error in the decision of the Board of Appeals and it is affirmed.

Boyle v. United States

107 Fed. Cl. 114 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2012

Plaintiffs burden is to show by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the decision of the correction board fails this standard. Wronke v. … Plaintiff also must overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to the actions of a correction board. See Richey v.

Green v. Commissioner

82 T.C. 843 · United States Tax Court · May 30, 1984

Co. v. … In Estate of Johnson v.

Southern Sportswear Co. v. Commissioner

10 T.C. 402 · United States Tax Court · Mar 8, 1948

Drygoods Co. v. United States, 280 U. S. 453 . … Rockland & Rockport Lime Corporation v. Ham, 38 Fed. (2d) 239; McDonnell v. United States, 59 Fed. (2d) 295; and Beam v. Hamilton, 289 Fed. 9 .

Application of Hartmut Steppan, August Rebenstock and Wilhelm Neugebauer

394 F.2d 1013 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 28, 1967

U.S.C. 102 which is not here before us. *1017 As pointed out in Graham v. … The board consisted of Messrs. Federico and Rosa, Examiners-in-Chief and Stone, Acting Examiner-in-Chief. Mr. Rosa wrote the opinion of the board. 2 .

Town Center Management Corp. v. United States

39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,691 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 29, 1994

GSBCA’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In a Wunderlich Act case, the reviewing court has the authority to review de novo the board’s conclusions of law. See Vista Scientific Corp. v. … However, a board’s interpretations of a contract are to be given careful consideration and a great deal of deference. Fortec Constructors v.

Grasselli v. Dewing

534 F.2d 306 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1976

as a whole, citing Patterson v. … As we recognized in Young v.

190420-8043

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 26, 2019

Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 330, 333-34 (1997); Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994). … JEBBY RASPUTNIS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board W. Wells, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided.

SAELEE

22 I. & N. Dec. 1258 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2000

Chi Thon Ngo v. … Zadvydas v.

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.

United States v. Petry Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 240 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1922

In the case of Dutton v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 460, 466 ; T. … D. 37781); also Wakem & McLaughlin v. United States ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., 24 ; T. D. 38259).