Case law

Bailey v. United States

171 F. Supp. 281 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 14, 1959

The Supreme Court and this court have consistently, and in a large number of cases, applied the bar of laches; among those cases, Dion v. United States, 137 Ct.Cl. 166 ; Baskin v. … United States, 95 Ct.Cl. 455 , certiorari denied, 1942, 316 U.S. 675 , 62 S.Ct. 1043 , 86 L.Ed. 1749 ; Nicholas v. United States, 1921, 257 U.S. 71 , 42 S.Ct. 7 , 66 L.Ed. 133 ; United States ex rel. Arant v.

09-03 650

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Jul 31, 2014

Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532, 538 (1993). … Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-71 (1994). However, lay witnesses are not competent to provide a medical diagnosis. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007).

Wallace L. Richardson, George J. Kautsky and Maurice R. Barusch v. Shirl E. Cook and Thomas O. Sistrunk

442 F.2d 1398 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1971

Blicke v. Treves, 241 F.2d 718 , 44 CCPA 753 (1957). … Gordon v. Hubbard, 347 F.2d 1001 , 52 CCPA 1598 (1965); White v. Lemmerman, 341 F.2d 110 , 52 CCPA 968 (1965).

Wayne Body Corp. v. Commissioner

24 B.T.A. 524 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 28, 1931

McWilliams v. Excelsior Coal Co., 298 Fed. 844. … Reviewed by the Board.

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. Alliance of Professionals & Consultants, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Sep 27, 2012

United States v. Hohri, 482 U.S. 64, 68 (1987) (quoting Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 43 (1986)). … Lamie v.

Admiral Financial Corp. v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 247 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 16, 2002

See Winstar Corp. v. … II, 245 F.3d at 1342 , aff'g, California Federal Bank, FSB v. United States; Landmark Land Co. v. United States; LaSalle Talman Bank, FSB v. United States; C. Robert Suess v.

Oldroyd v. Morgan

57 F.2d 358 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

Brogden v. Slater, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1240, 40 F. (2d) 988; Moore v. Greene, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1317, 48 F. (2d) 960. … Oldroyd v. Morgan, 58 App. D. C. 78.

CARACHURI-ROSENDO

24 I. & N. Dec. 382 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2007

Concurring Opinions: PAULEY, Board Member, joined by HURWITZ, Acting Vice Chairman; HESS, Board Member. … Board Member Pauley’s concurring opinion points to a footnote in Smith v.

Tower v. United States

34 Cust. Ct. 95 · United States Customs Court · Mar 10, 1955

Brown v. Maryland, 25 U. S. 266, 279 . See also Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, 74 U. … The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. United States, 20 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 134, T. D. 45773.

12-10 189

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Apr 29, 2016

. § 7104 (West 2014); Taylor v. West, 11 Vet. App. 436, 440-41 (1998); Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 416, 425 (1994). … Where the law and not the evidence are dispositive of the issue before the Board, the claim must be denied because of the absence of legal merit or the lack of entitlement under the law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet.

K

20 I. & N. Dec. 418 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1991

See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987); INS v. … Id.; see also Ramirez-Ramos v.

OSC Solutions, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jan 17, 2023

N00189-20-A-0002 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Frank V. Reilly, Esq. Oakland Park, FL APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. … Sys., Inc. v. United States, 778 F.3d 1000, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “The facts supporting jurisdiction are subject to our fact-finding upon a review of the record.”

Application of Arthur L. Reese

359 F.2d 462 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 21, 1966

It relates only to the time for a request or petition to the Board of Appeals for a rehearing or reconsideration or modification of its decision by it, not by us. … Eckey v. Watson, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 16 , 268 F.2d 891 . The question of the applicability of that rule not being before us, however, we express no views regarding appellant’s rights should he rely on Rule 183.

Morris v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 260 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 24, 1991

The rating board, however, did not change the effective date of appellant’s 0-percent rating. On March 8, 1989, the rating board confirmed its 10-percent rating. R. at 139. … Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384-85 , 68 S.Ct. 1, 3 , 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947).

180806-203

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2020

In determining whether service connection is warranted, the Board shall consider the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996); Gilbert v. … Kellar v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 157, 161 (1994).

08-31 617

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 31, 2011

See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); see also Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). … See Jones v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 134, 137 (1994); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992). As such, the Board finds that the VA opinion is more probative than the Veteran's assertions.

Miller & Paine v. Commissioner

42 B.T.A. 586 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Aug 20, 1940

MILLER & PAINE, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Miller & Paine v. Commissioner Docket No. 94968. … United States Board of Tax Appeals 42 B.T.A. 586 ; 1940 BTA LEXIS 981 ; August 20, 1940 , Promulgated *981 Petitioner was a stockholder and one of the creditors of a New Jersey corporation.

Mecke v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 237 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1924

from Henderson v. … This view is analogous to that expressed by Judge Barber, speaking for this court, in the case of Lord & Taylor v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 345, 348 ; T.

Hunt v. Treppschuh

523 F.2d 1386 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 16, 1975

In Smith v. … In this case, as in Smith v.

Rose Hills Memorial Park Ass'n v. United States

463 F.2d 425 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1972

Despite the fact that the certificate holders were not shareholders, the Tax Court characterized the transfers as contributions to equity capital, citing Brown Shoe Co. v. … This is quite different from Brown in which, “If the stipulated price was paid, the Brown family would forever lose all rights to the income and properties of the company.” 380 U.S. at 569 , 85 S.Ct. at 1165 .