Case law

Artwohl v. United States

434 F.2d 1319 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 11, 1970

Royal Holland Lloyd v. United States, 73 Ct. Cl. 722, 732 (1932). … In Fruhauf Southwest Garment Co. v. United States, 126 Ct. Cl. 51, 62 , 111 F.

Turnage v. U.S. Department of Agriculture

230 Ct. Cl. 799 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 12, 1982

ASCS, however, appealed to the board. The board remanded to the field office for reconsideration in light of Wells v. … Harris, supra, which had been decided by the board just a few days earlier, with instructions to reopen the record and to allow ASCS to proceed under chapter 75. The board in Wells v.

Southern Construction Company, Inc. v. The United States

364 F.2d 439 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1966

Simmons Co. v. … Co. v.

Harold R. Conn v. The United States

376 F.2d 878 · United States Court of Claims · May 12, 1967

Cole v. United States, 171 Ct.Cl. 178 (1965); Middleton v. United States, 170 Ct.Cl. 36 (1965); Smith v. United States, 155 Ct.Cl. 682 (1961). … Middleton v. United States, 175 Ct.Cl. 786 (1966). 1 .

Titan Pacific Construction Corp. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,693 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 18, 1989

Co. v. United States, 149 Ct.Cl. 514, 518 (1960). . Sundstrand Turbo v. United States, 389 F.2d at 422-23 ; Jefferson Constr. Co. of Florida v. … Koppers Co. v. United States, 405 F.2d at 558 . . Koppers Co. v. United States, 405 F.2d at 558 . . Id. at 559 . . Id. at 559 . . George Hyman Constr. Co. v.

Tankersley v. United States

179 Ct. Cl. 294 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1967

Since the Board’s rulings caimot be invalidated under the Wunderlich Act, there is no basis for a further administrative hearing or for a court trial. United States v. … Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U.S. 709 (1963); United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966); United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., 384 U.S. 424 (1966).

Williams v. United States

172 F. Supp. 439 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 8, 1959

Fredrickson v. United States, 133 C. Cls. 890 (1956). … This argument was made In Leonard v. United States, 131 C. Cls. 91 (1955).

Kirk v. United States

164 Ct. Cl. 738 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 14, 1964

Murray v. United States, 154 Ct. Cl. 185, 191 (1961); Smith v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 682, 691 (1961). … Tricou v. United States, 71 Ct. Cl. 356, 360 (1930) ; Mistretta v. United States, 128 Ct. Cl. 41, 44 (1954), 120 F. Supp. 264, 266 ; see Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct.

Carver v. United States

27 F. Supp. 608 · United States Court of Claims · May 29, 1939

Co. v. United States, 72 C. Cls. 663, 669 , we held following the cases of Ohio Steel Foundry Co. v. United States, 69 C. Cls. 158 , and Arthur Curtiss James v. United States, 69 C. … As was said in Goodenough, Trustee, v. United States, 85 C.

Reid

618 F.2d 123 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 28, 1979

The remaining issue in this case is whether the board acted arbitrarily or capriciously in failing to void the second passover after removing the OER. In Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. … The specific standard for recovery was enunciated in Riley v.

T. F. Scholes, Inc., and Berks County Trust Company v. The United States

357 F.2d 963 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 18, 1966

Bateson Construction Co. v. United States, 149 Ct.Cl. 514, 518 (1960); Ivy H. Smith Co. v. United States, 154 Ct.Cl. 74, 83 (1961). … Levering & Garrigues Co. v. United States, 73 Ct.Cl. 566, 574 (1932).

Switlik Parachute Co. v. United States

573 F.2d 1228 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 19, 1978

Cf., DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct. … See Davis v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 20, 34 (1967); and H & H Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 168 Ct. Cl. 873, 880-81 (1964).

Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. The United States

439 F.2d 185 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 19, 1971

Corp. v. United States, 162 F.Supp. 772 , 776, 142 Ct.Cl. 609, 616 (1958). … See United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 , 86 S.Ct. 1545 , 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966); Paccon, Inc. v. United States, 399 F.2d 162, 168-169 , 185 Ct.Cl. 24, 35 (1968); Chaney & James Constr. Co. v.

Ottinger v. United States

88 F. Supp. 881 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 6, 1950

The case was referred to the National War Labor Board, which in turn referred it to the Wage Adjustment Board. … Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458 , 45 S.Ct. 344 , 69 L.Ed. 736 ; Deming v. United States, 1 Ct.Cl. 190 ; Jones v. United States, 1 Ct.Cl. 383 ; Clemmer Construction Co., Inc., v.

Turnkey Enterprises, Inc. v. United States

597 F.2d 750 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 18, 1979

The court can differ from or agree with the Board in reading contract documents. Arundel Corp. v. United States, supra, 207 Ct. Cl. at 97 , 515 F.2d at 1123 ; United Contractors v. United States, 177 Ct. … Co. v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 925, 954 , 413 F.2d 1167, 1184-85 (1969); Dean Constr. Co. v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 62 , 74-75, 411 F.2d 1238, 1245 (1969). See also McKee v. United States, 205 Ct.

Klein v. United States

285 F.2d 778 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 18, 1961

In that case the Supreme Court held that the Act of June 15, 1917, 40 Stat. 182 , as construed in Russell Motor Car Co. v. … in Volentine and Littleton v.

Hugh Gibbs, A.I.A. v. The United States

358 F.2d 972 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 15, 1966

Panama Power & Light Co. v. United States, 278 F.2d 939 , 150 Ct.Cl. 290 (1960); Jones & Sears, Inc. v. United States, 158 Ct.Cl. 162 (1962). … Panama Power & Light Co. v. United States, supra; Jones & Sears, Inc. v. United States, supra; Corbin On Contracts, §§ 540, 614 (1960).

Langoma Industries, Inc. v. United States

135 F. Supp. 282 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 8, 1955

, and the action and decision of the Board. … United States v. William, Cramp & Sons, 206 U. S. 118 ; Williston on Contracts, Rev. Ed. Vol. 1, Sec. 129; Potter v. Pacific Coast Lumber Co., 234 Pac. 2d 16 .

Missouri Pacific Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 14 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 13, 1983

See Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 651 , 94 S.Ct. 2431, 2436 , 41 L.Ed.2d 374 (1974). Railroad Retirement Board v. … This interpretation is inconsistent with a “ ‘construction that will carry into execution the will of the Legislature Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. at 650 , 94 S.Ct. at 2436 (quoting Brown v.

Atkinson v. United States

144 Ct. Cl. 585 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 14, 1959

As we stated in Misuraca v. United States, 135 C. Cls. 387 and in DeBusk v. United States, 132 C. … This problem was considered by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Thomas v. Ward, 225 F. 2d 953 .