Case law

In Re Reeves

62 F.2d 199 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 27, 1932

Guthrie v. Curlett et al., supra, and Flint v. Leonard, supra. It was said in Guthrie v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Davis v. United States

181 Ct. Cl. 1095 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1967

Watson v. United States, 152 Ct. Cl. 273 (1961). Plaintiff’s sincerity in the effort to be returned to active duty is unchallenged. … (The relevance of this comment rests upon the relation to this case of the court’s decision in Beckham v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 539 , 375 F. 2d 782 (1967). Finding 11(c). Finding 3(d). Finding 5.

Frederick F. Blicke v. Gino R. Treves

241 F.2d 718 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 8, 1957

Walker on Patents, § 141a; Hunter v. Strikeman, 13 App.D.C. 214, 226 ; Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App.D.C. 86, 92 ; Linde-meyr v. Hoffman, 18 App.D.C. 1, 5 ; Roe v. Hanson, 19 App.D.C. 559, 564 .” … Kyrides v. Bruson, 102 F.2d 416 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 986; Chittick v. Lyons, 104 F.2d 818 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1382; Muskat v. Schmelkes, 140 F.2d 984 , 31 C.C.P.A., Patents, 837; Kvalnes v.

In Re Michalek

162 F.2d 229 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1947

to carry out a process in such fashion that it will not be successful and, therefore, the failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight, citing Bul-lard Company et al. v. … For the reasons stated herein, the decisions of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

URENA

25 I. & N. Dec. 140 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2009

FOR RESPONDENT: Pro se BEFORE: Board Panel: PAULEY, ADKINS-BLANCH, and GUENDELSBERGER, Board Members. … See Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 537-42 (1952). An Immigration Judge should only set a bond if he first determines that the alien does not present a danger to the community. See Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 38.

Degenaars Co. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,186 · United States Court of Claims · May 18, 1983

Cornell Wrecking Co. v. United States, 184 Ct.Cl. 289, 291 (1968). As noted by the Board, AGC rates include profit and depreciation factors, 75-1 B.C.A. … Hall Construction Co. v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 870, 886 , 379 F.2d 559 (1966). The cases cited by defendant to support the Board’s decision are distinguishable. Weaver 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 .

09-34 348

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Sep 30, 2015

Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994). … Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 252 (1999); see Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Cloquet Coop. Society v. Commissioner

21 B.T.A. 744 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Dec 17, 1930

Board of Directors. Sec. 1. … Also see State v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co., 80 Minn. 17 ; 82 N. W. 1090 ; National Bond & Security Co. v. Hopkins, 96 Minn. 119 ; 104 N. W. 678 ; Thompson v. United States, 8 Fed. (2d) 175.

14-31 839

Board of Veterans' Appeals · May 31, 2018

Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff’d, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). … Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc).

In Re Stauber

45 F.2d 661 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1930

Mell v. Midgley, 31 App. D. C. 834; In re Neill, 11 App. D. C. 584. As we view the matter, however, the action of the Board of Appeals in this case does not amount to a mere matter of practice. … Podlesak v. McInnerney, 26 App. D. C. 399; Stevens v. Seher, 11 App. D. C. 245; United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen, 392 U. S. 543 , 561, 24 S. Ct. 416 , 48 L. Ed. 555 .

Collins v. United States

47 Fed. Cl. 196 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 21, 2000

See Bonen v. … The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Real v. United States, 906 F.2d 1557, 1560 (Fed.Cir.1990) (citing Friedman v.

OLQUIN

23 I. & N. Dec. 896 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2006

DeFabio, Esquire, Coral Gables, Florida FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Alexandra Rivas, Assistant Chief Counsel BEFORE: Board Panel: HOLMES, HURWITZ, and MILLER, Board Members HURWITZ, Board Member: The respondent … See Schmitt v. State, 590 So.2d 404, 410-11 (Fla. 1991). 1 In Schmitt v.

Christensen v. United States

49 Fed. Cl. 165 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 9, 2001

(“FY94B SERB” or “board”). … In Moore v.

J-P

9 I. & N. Dec. 591 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1962

We cited the decision Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work- men of .North, America, AFL–CIO v. Rogers and Swing. 186 F. Supp. 114 (D.C. … In Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen. of North America, AFL–CIO v. Rogers and Swing, supra, the court was aware of the history of the "commuter" class, and said: . . .

In re Phipps

154 F.2d 116 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1946

Western States Machine Co. v. S. S. … prosecution of appellant’s application before the examiner and were not considered by the board.

Walther v. Vanderveer

64 F.2d 540 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1933

Hatfield, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is a motion to dismiss without prej udice an appeal in an interference proceeding from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office awarding … United States v. The Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Co., 18 How. 241; Donallan v. Tannage Patent Co., 79 Fed. 385 ; 4 C. J. 588, § 2400. We find here no such equitable considerations.

Hendricks v. Commissioner

4 B.T.A. 1257 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Sep 30, 1926

In support of this contention, he cites the case of Edwards v. Douglas, 269 U. S. 204 . … We have carefully considered the case of Edwards v.

Application of Francis J. Honn and Willard M. Sims

364 F.2d 454 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 4, 1966

In Lawson v. … As is evident from the excerpt from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences which is quoted in Lawson v.

Chocolade-fabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jul 30, 2009

See Springfield Inc. v. … In the recent case of The Equine Touch Foundation, Inc. v.