# Volentine and Littleton v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · November 7, 1956 · 145 F. Supp. 952

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620221

## Case

- **Full name:** VOLENTINE AND LITTLETON, Contractors, a Partnership, Composed of M. O. Volentine and Earl Littleton, v. the UNITED STATES
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** November 7, 1956
- **Citations:** 145 F. Supp. 952; 136 Ct. Cl. 638; 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 138
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Laramore
- **Judges:** Littleton
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620221

## Opinion text

*959 LARAMORE, Judge.
I respectfully dissent.
Because of the unsettled nature of this type of controversy, I believe the case should be referred back to a commissioner of this court for further proceedings. However, as a guide to the commissioner and the litigants in this case, I believe a discussion of the finality of the administrative decision intended under the Act of May 11, 1954, supra, would be appropriate.
I do not believe that Congress intended by the language in the Act of May 11, 1954, supra, “shall be final and conclusive unless the same is fraudulent * * to make the decision of the administrative board final subject only to the usual administrative review such as that provided in the Administrative Procedures Act, 60 Stat. 237 , because of the lack of procedural due process afforded by the Appeals Board.
However, I believe a common sense application of the Act of May 11, 1954, supra, considering the background of the legislation and the administrative procedures available to aggrieved contractors, would be to apply the usual administrative review rule and determine the question of arbitrariness, etc., and lack of substantial evidence on the record made before an appeals board, unless the contractor alleges and proves that because of the procedures available in the Appeals Board as applied to him, he was unable to adequately present his case. That is to say, because of the failure of the Government to produce documents or witnesses or inability of the plaintiff to compel the attendance of witnesses or other procedures that would prevent plaintiff from adequately establishing material facts with reference to his claim, or if the board considered evidence not in the record. Further, he must allege and prove the additional material facts which were not before the board.
Because of the failure of the plaintiff to put the record of the Appeals Board in evidence, it is impossible for this court to determine whether the decision of the Appeals Board was arbitrary, etc., or not supported by substantial evidence. If the plaintiff desires the court to go beyond the record of the Appeals Board in deciding whether it is entitled to recover, it must amend its petition and allege and prove the facts above outlined.
I would refer the case back to a commissioner of this court in conformity with the above dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620221. Public record. Not legal advice.