Case law

Diamond Manufacturing Co. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,579 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 29, 1983

Merritt v. United States, 267 U.S. 338 , 45 S.Ct. 278 , 69 L.Ed. 643 (1925); Algo-nac Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 192 Ct.Cl. 649 , 428 F.2d 1241 (1970). … Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 656 F.2d 644 (1981); Santa Fe Engineers v. United States, 677 F.2d 876 (1982).

Application of Pappas

185 F.2d 695 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1950

It was not listed as a reference and was not referred to in his statement following the appeal to the board, nor did the board refer to it. … It is mathematically expressed as: where RN is Reynolds Number, u (mu) the viscosity of the air, V the velocity of the airfoil through the air, L is the chord length of the profile and p (rho) is the density of the air.

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.

Brown

566 F.2d 1188 · United States Court of Claims · May 13, 1977

Brown v. American Express Int’l Banking Corp., No. 75-7140 (6th Cir. April 28, 1976). … Brown v. American Express, supra. The fact that plaintiff is now suing the United States does not ipso facto change his claim into one for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment; it remains a tort action.

Rust Engineering Co. v. United States

86 Ct. Cl. 461 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1938

of officials of the Treasury Department, of which board the contracting officer was not a member, solely on the ground that a ruling of the Comptroller General, by which the board considered itself bound, prohibited the … The cases of McCord v. United States, 9 C. Cls. 155 ; Moran Brothers Co. v. United States, 61 C. Cls. 73, 103 ; and Levering & Garrigues Co. v. United States, 73 C.

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: . . .

Olympia Veneer Co. v. Commissioner

22 B.T.A. 892 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

Dry Goods Co. v. United States, and White v. Hood Rubber Co., 280 U. S. 453 . … The case of White v.

Teague v. Commissioner

32 B.T.A. 641 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 17, 1935

to state expressly what the court *644 held in American Equitable Assurance Co. of New York v. … Helver ing, 68 Fed. (2d) 46, namely, to suspend the statute during the pendency of a proceeding before the Board, notwithstanding that the Board should ultimately be held to be without jurisdiction.

Miller v. United States

19 Ct. Cl. 338 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1884

(Mimmack v. The United States, 97 U. S., 426 .) … (Blake v. United States, 103 U. S., 237 .)

NAULU

19 I. & N. Dec. 351 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1985

Santiago v. INS, 526 F.2d 488 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971 (1976). … See Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1985).

J

8 I. & N. Dec. 78 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1959

In support of his arguments against expatriation, counsel cites as controlling precedents Perez v. Browne% 686 U.B. 44 (l988) ; Trap v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 36 (1958); and Nisltikau4 v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958). … Landon, 350 U.S. 920 (1955); Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129; Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86; and Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, the latter three having been decided on March 31, 1958.

United States v. Jaehne

8 Ct. Cust. 307 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1918

was taken by tbe Government before tbe board within tbe two months next succeeding. … The present question is analogous to that presented to this court in the case of United States v. Rothschild & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 251 ; T.

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).

Wear v. Commissioner

26 B.T.A. 682 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 20, 1932

That case was based on established rulings of the Federal courts and has been approvingly cited by the Board in subsequent cases. It stands as the considered judgment of the Board. See Marry M. Lee, Executor, 18 B. T. … Hancy, supra; Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327 . Pennsylvania Co., etc. v. Lederer, supra; Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. McCaughn, 34 Fed. (2d) 600. Decision will he entered for the respondent.

Application of Richard E. Warner and Virginia Ann Warner

379 F.2d 1011 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1967

Justice Clark in United States v. … Compare Swofford v. B & W, Inc., 251 F.Supp. 811 (S.D.Tex.1966). See also Railex Corp. v. Joseph Guss & Sons, 256 F.Supp. 994 at fn. 1 (D.D.C.1966). .

191209-48557

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Aug 31, 2020

Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997). … See Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 383 (1998); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 40 (1994). The Board has considered the lay statements of the Veteran regarding tinnitus.

Kraus v. Commissioner

59 T.C. 681 · United States Tax Court · Feb 22, 1973

V. D. … Knetsch v. United States, 364 U.S. 361 (1960); Griffiths v. Commissioner, 308 U.S. 355 (1939); Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935).

United States v. Glück & Sons

8 Ct. Cust. 11 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1917

United States v. Von Oefele ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 284 ; T. D. 33492). ■ The paragraphs directly involved are 356, upon which the Government relies, and 167 and 360, under which the board held the mer•chandise dutiable. … Without in any way departing from the rule of Hensel v.

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.

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.