Case law

Stamer v. United States

148 Ct. Cl. 482 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1960

The Department of the Army, on May 9, 1951, requested her to obtain a declaratory judgment to establish her marital rights, which she did not do. … Although plaintiff was appointed as Ad-ministratrix of the Estate of Francis Harold Stamer, who died intestate, by a probate court of Massachusetts on July 11, 1956, she had not so qualified on the dates of these payments

Mitkof Lumber Co. v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,117 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 14, 1991

The base rate is an established rate below which a bid may not be accepted by the Service. 1 In addition, Mit-kof bid an additional $.31 per MBF in cash. … It is difficult, in view of the clearly expressed legislative intent, for Mitkof to argue that it did not get the complete relief directed by section 4.

Branning v. United States

6 Cl. Ct. 618 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 19, 1984

According to the Court of Claims, the evidence received at the trial on liability “clearly establishes” that, as a result of aircraft operations at MCAS-Beaufort, some portions of Pleasant Point Plantation had already been … Schott’s assumption on this point, said that the evidence before the court “clearly establishes” that military aircraft operations had rendered portions of Pleasant Point Plantation unsuitable for residential development

Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co. v. United States

24 Cl. Ct. 714 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 18, 1991

The funds in Lincoln Savings that were determined to constitute an asset are clearly distinguishable from the premiums paid by plaintiff. … This fact was not established at trial. Mr.

Yee v. United States

512 F.2d 1383 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 19, 1975

voiding the December 7 pass over, the AFBCMR stated: There can be no argument with the selection board’s decision that Captain Yee’s record, as reflected in his selection folder, did not merit his selection under the best qualified … As this court has said before and reaffirms today, when a correction board fails to correct an injustice clearly presented in the record before it, it is acting in violation of its mandate.

Rawlins v. United States

686 F.2d 903 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 11, 1982

The record establishes that selection panels and boards attach great weight to the existence and strength of such recommendations. In 1949, plaintiff approached Vice Admiral F. C. … The report was an inaccurate and improper evaluation of plaintiffs performance as was clearly demonstrated by the evaluation by Admiral Carney, the letter written by Rear Admiral Wooldridge in June 1947, and the letter written

Friedman v. United States

310 F.2d 381 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 7, 1962

Brown, Seabrook and Caddington clearly dealt with implementation of a favorable board decision and in that sense the claim was, and had to be, founded on the board’s own action. … Correction Board proceedings would not render reviewable those substantive rulings which would otherwise be immune from review. 2.

Gleeson v. United States

140 Ct. Cl. 265 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 6, 1957

The permits clearly were for the radio station buildings of bca. … Many of them are entirely anticipatory and speculative and others clearly not attributable to action of defendant.

Craft Machine Works, Inc. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,861 · United States Court of Claims · May 4, 1990

Duty Free Entry clause The Duty Free Entry clause prohibits government contractors from including within their bids amounts for import duties on supplies from qualifying countries. … In this case, however, the contract documents and the regulations speak clearly as to what the parties intended the term "supplies” to mean. See Moore v.

Associated Electric Co. v. United States

97 F. Supp. 821 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 6, 1951

Such a profit might appear in a summary statement of income made at the end of a period of operations but would be qualified by a notation as to the character of the transaction. … The court said, in part: *703 If a pure analytical approach be employed, clearly there was here no prohibition of the declaration of dividends.

Town of Fallsburg v. United States

22 Cl. Ct. 633 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 8, 1991

Service Scaffold needed the indemnification in order to qualify for the contract award. … While the amount of the penalty is clearly reviewable by the court for arbitrariness, the court is persuaded that the amount chosen here was not unreasonable.

Reliance Insurance v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,090 · United States Court of Claims · May 8, 1991

Clearly, Reliance cannot meet the first prong of the certification test. … The burden is on plaintiff to establish that it has met the jurisdictional requirement of proper certification. Grumman, supra, 927 F.2d at 581 . This Reliance has failed to do.

Indians of California ex rel. U. S. Webb v. United States

98 Ct. Cl. 583 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1942

These Indians did not qualify before the Commission created by the Act of March 3,1851, 9 Stat. 631 , entitled “An Act to -ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California.” … In the instant case this is clearly admitted and recognized in the last paragraph of section 2 of the jurisdictional act which reads as follows: It is hereby declared that the loss to the said Indians on account of their

Kronner v. United States

110 F. Supp. 730 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 3, 1953

Wemp and William O’Neill Kronner, as duly qualified executors of his estate, were substituted in his stead. This suit was instituted to recover a portion of the income taxes paid by Mr. and Mrs. … In contending that no assignment occurred, the defendant points to- the failure to use words clearly denoting such in the 1921 agreement, the presence of provisions in that agreement for termination thereof, and the language

Sampson v. United States

207 Ct. Cl. 17 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1975

We said at 52, 355 F. 2d 590 : * * * Generally, an assignment made as collateral security for a debt gives the assignee only a qualified interest in the assigned chose, commensurate with the debt or liabilities secured, even … Even if we did not believe that the July 30,1968, mortgage novation clearly reflects the understanding of Equitable in light of the 1967 agreements (i.e., that Equitable waived any claim to SID’s rehabilitation damages award

Gant v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 442 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 23, 1989

Although he was qualified to apply for voluntary retirement status immediately upon discharge, 5 plaintiff chose not to do so on the advice of counsel. … The foregoing conclusion is clearly warranted, notwithstanding the admitted facts which clearly demonstrate—that plaintiff voluntarily chose not to file a retirement application at the time of his involuntary discharge from

Ward v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 680 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 26, 1992

Lt Col Ward’s failure to adhere to established lines of authority. The hearing officer recommended that immediate action be taken to decertify the plaintiff as an AFJROTC Instructor. … As defined in § 7511(a)(1)(B), Lt Col Ward qualified as an employee who was “preference eligible in an Executive agency in the excepted service.”

Loesch v. United States

645 F.2d 905 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 11, 1981

The plaintiffs who did testify in these cases established clearly that erosion, in varying degrees, was taking place on their riverbank properties. Defendant concedes this fact. … He was eminently qualified to offer expert opinions on river matters, especially erosion.

Schoeffel v. United States

193 Ct. Cl. 923 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1971

What happened on this occasion is clearly established by the evidence. The park superintendent, newly arrived on the job, asked plaintiffs if they had any questions about the contract. … Planson, a well-qualified, expert, real estate appraiser, as a witness. Mr.

Koster v. United States

685 F.2d 407 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 28, 1982

But a commander clearly must be held responsible for those matters which he knows to be of serious import, and with respect to which he assumes personal charge. … Where, as here, there is no problem of sovereign immunity, 4 executive discretion must be subject at least to constitutional review. See Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980); Mindes v.