Case law

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).

Alpirn v. United States

111 F. Supp. 280 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1953

United States v. Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U. S. 121 . No proof was offered on this point and the rule is controlling here. … Interstate Circuit Inc. v. United States, 306 U. S. 208 .

Mauricio Hochschild, S.A.M.I. v. United States

176 Ct. Cl. 808 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1966

This allegation is in conformity with the findings of the Board of Contract Appeals. … The recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., 384 U.S. 424 (1966), rev’g Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 170 Ct.

Louis S. Cohn Co. v. Commissioner

12 B.T.A. 1281 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 11, 1928

COHN CO., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Louis S. Cohn Co. v. Commissioner Docket No. 13501. … United States Board of Tax Appeals 12 B.T.A. 1281 ; 1928 BTA LEXIS 3372 ; July 11, 1928 , Promulgated *3372 1.

Wetmore v. Miller

477 F.2d 960 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1973

See Rieser v. Williams, 255 F.2d 419 , 45 CCPA 953 (1958); Stalego v. Heymes, 263 F.2d 334 , 46 CCPA 772 (1959). … The decision of the board is affirmed as to count 2.

J-C-A-G

29 I. & N. Dec. 331 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Sep 19, 2025

See, e.g., Herrera-Martinez v. … See Matter of A-A-F-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 118, 122 (BIA 2025) (recognizing that the Board reviews de novo the ultimate question of whether the alien’s predicted harm satisfies the legal definition of torture).

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.

Stampados v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 684 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 13, 1985

A physical evaluation board, of course, is the successor to the “Retiring Board” discussed in Friedman. 310 F.2d at 390 n. 10, 159 Ct.Cl. 1 ; Lipp v. United States, 301 F.2d 674, 676 , 157 Ct.Cl. 197 (1962). … See Gerber, 2 Cl.Ct. at 317 ; Warner v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 717 , 718 (1980).

Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc. v. Thermo King Corp.

478 F.2d 1243 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1973

See AMF, Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc., 474 F.2d 1403 (CCPA 1973) and cases cited therein. Furthermore, we cannot agree with Í» appellant’s assertions regarding the portion of the trademark. … See Mead Johnson & Co. v. American Home Products Corp., 461 F.2d 1381 , 59 CCPA 1082 (1972) and Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. M. Landaw Ltd., 474 F.2d 1402 (CCPA 1973).

Iron Balls International Ltd. v. Bull Creek Brewing, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 4, 2024

This Section “gives the Board the equitable power to, inter alia, restrict the goods or services identified in an application or registration.” Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. … Lukens Inc. v.

In re Kluter

92 F.2d 906 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1937

Tbe board cited one more reference, McClevey, 1,396,515, of November 8,1921. … (Patents) 1114, 47 F. (2d) 970, we quoted from the leading case on this question, Potts v. Creager, 155 U.

Kenneth G. Mastrullo v. Department of Labor

2015 MSPB 67 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Dec 31, 2015

Wynn v. U.S. … Schnell v.

Public Warehousing Company K.S.C.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Apr 10, 2014

Afro-Lecon, Inc. v. United States, 820 F.2d 1198, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 (1980). … Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, 487 (5th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 955 (1963); United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970).

Tel-Electric Co. v. Commissioner

1 B.T.A. 434 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 29, 1925

In this case the Board clearly has jurisdiction to consider the deficiency in tax found by the Commissioner for the years 1918 and 1919. … Taxpayer relies upon the decision of the Court of Claims in the case of the Brilliant Coal Company v. United States, 59 Ct.

Richard L. Miller v. Office of Personnel Management

2016 MSPB 44 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Dec 20, 2016

The Board also has recognized that the Handbook lacks the force of law, but is entitled to deference in proportion to its “power to persuade.” Warren v. … Russo v.

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).

Law v. United States

195 Ct. Cl. 370 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1971

McGraw & Co. v. United States, supra. … A Government board of contract appeals is “not precluded from deciding a claim on a theory not advanced by the parties.” L. B. Samford, Inc. v. United States, 187 Ct.

Application of Carl A. Lukach, Setha G. Olson and Harold M. Spurlin

442 F.2d 967 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1971

Kaiser Co. v. McLouth Steel Corp., 257 F.Supp. 372, 429 (E.D.Mich.1966), affd., Kaiser Industries Corp. v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . The grandparent was a continuation-in-part of application serial No. 796,261, filed March 2,1959, now abandoned.

Fulton v. United States

47 Fed. Cl. 503 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2000

See Crager v. United States, 25 Cl.Ct. 400, 406 (1992) (citations omitted). … See Porter v. United States, 163 F.3d 1304, 1312 (Fed.Cir.1998).

Petry Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 525 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1923

In United States v. Olivotti & Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 46 ; T. … See Lazarus v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 508, 509 ; T. D. 32247); United States v. Downing ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 545 ; T.