Case law

Hendrick v. United States

150 Ct. Cl. 437 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 8, 1960

Register v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 98 . As a matter of fact, there is a strong presumption that the disability had its origin in line of duty. Moore v. United States, 48 Ct. Cl. 110 . … The board, after deliberating on the evidence, made the following recommended findings: (1) That Thomas Francis Hendrick, BMGC, V-6, TTSNR, #172 0012, be found unfit to perform the duties of his rate by reason of physical

Universal Fiberglass Corp. v. United States

537 F.2d 393 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 16, 1976

In Frantz Equipment Co. v. United States, 120 Ct. … We held in Frantz Equipment Co. v. United States, 122 Ct. Cl. 622, 631 , 105 F.

Girault v. United States

130 F. Supp. 343 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1955

This finding was approved by the Surgeon General and the Adjutant General and by the Secretary of War’s Disability Review Board. In Spencer v. … United States, 102 F.Supp. 774 , 121 Ct.Cl. 558 , certiorari denied 344 U.S. 828 , 73 S.Ct. 29 , 97 L.Ed. 644 , and in Carlin v.

Candelaria v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 266 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 26, 1984

The court observed: “In Gwin v. … The Correction Board was the forum plaintiff was in, and in which he had the burden to present evidence to support his disability claim. See Friedman v.

Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc. v. The United States

345 F.2d 808 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1965

(as the Board held). … Langenfelder & Sons, Inc. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 341 F.2d 600 , February 19, 1965, H. B. Zachry Co. v.

Jefferson Construction Co. Of Florida, a Florida Corporation v. The United States

364 F.2d 420 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1966

Bank of Atlanta v. United States, 98 Ct.Cl. 256, 280 (1943); Jefferson Construction Co. v. … Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v.

Ace Construction Company, a Corporation v. The United States

401 F.2d 816 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 18, 1968

It is well settled that an issue not raised before the Board cannot be raised for the first time before this court. Beaconwear Clothing Co. v. … Co. v. United States, 348 F.2d 968 , 172 Ct.Cl. 560 (1965) ; cf. Perini Corp. v. United States, 381 F.2d 403 , 180 Ct.Cl. 768 (1967). 9 . See Norfolk Dredging Co. v.

Goeppner v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 345 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 14, 1983

Quirk v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. at 782-83 ; Neumann v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. at 592 . … Quirk v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. at 783 ; Gentry v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 654 , 656 (1980).

Cramp Shipbuilding Co. v. United States

122 Ct. Cl. 72 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 8, 1952

See Martin Wunderlich v. United States, 117 C. Cls. 92, 212 , reversed on other grounds 342 U. S. 98 ; McWilliams Dredging Co. v. United States, 118 C. Cls. 1, 16 , for *98 discussion and citations. … The plaintiff urges that a contractor with the Government is not prejudiced by his failure to take a vain appeal, citing United States v. Smith, 256 U. S. 11 . In United States v. Blair, 321 U.

Carl M. Halvorson, Inc. v. United States

461 F.2d 1337 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 16, 1972

Co. v. United States, 190 Ct. … Co. v. United States, supra, 190 Ct.

Antonio A. Versaci v. The United States

403 F.2d 246 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 15, 1968

McGiven v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 920 (1968). Cf. Brozik v. … As was stated in Beckham v.

Krennrich v. United States

340 F.2d 653 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1965

Martilla v. United States, 118 Ct. Cl. 177 (1950); Adler v. United States, 134 Ct. Cl. 200 , 146 F. Supp. 956 , cert denied, 352 U.S. 894 (1956) ; Morelli v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 44 (1963). … that the Board and the Assistant Administrator strayed.

Singer Co. v. United States

568 F.2d 695 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 14, 1977

E.g., Mescalero Apache Tribe v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 369 , 518 F.2d 1309 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911 (1976). … Framlau *285 Corp. v. United States, ante at 185. It is, therefore, concluded that the Board decision was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary or capricious, and was not contrary to law.

Raytheon Co. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,309 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 28, 1983

Therefore, the Board’s interpretation of a contract is not binding on the court, although its determination “will be given careful consideration and accorded great respect.” George Hyman Construction Co. v. … Consequently, the Board concluded that the plaintiff received overpayments in the total amount of $11,719. The Government is entitled to a refund of all amounts erroneously or illegally paid. United States v.

Quailes v. United States

25 Cl. Ct. 659 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1992

In military pay matters, the court reviews a plaintiff’s case “through the prism of a correction board.” Cohn v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 778, 789 (1988). … Procedurally this case is similar to Yount v.

Allied Contractors, Inc. v. United States

176 Ct. Cl. 1095 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1966

After a ruling by this court that, pursuant to United States v. … In a case in which it is determined that United States v.

Williamsburg Drapery Company, Inc. v. The United States

407 F.2d 1342 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 14, 1969

ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PER CURIAM : * This is the residuum from the court’s earlier opinion (Williamsburg Drapery Co. v. … as stated was remanded to the Board for ascertainment of basic facts.

Southwest Welding & Manufacturing Company v. The United States

413 F.2d 1167 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1969

Corp. v. … This quotation from the Board’s decision describes a patent, not a latent, defect. United States for Use of B’s Co. v. Cleveland Elec. Co., 373 F.2d 585 (4th Cir. 1967); Roberts v.

Consolidated Freightways, Inc. v. United States

620 F.2d 862 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1980

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States, 369 F. Supp 1283 (W.D. Ky. 1973), aff’d per curiam 491 F. 2d 1258 (6th Cir. 1974) (tobacco sheds); Catron v. … This was done in Brown-Forman and also in Satrum v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 413, 417 (1974) (reviewed by the court).

Dawnic Steamship Corp. v. United States

90 Ct. Cl. 537 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 4, 1940

The plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations did not commence to run until the Shipping Board had declined to resume consideration of its claims and in support of this contention cites the case of Smith v. … Under the allegations of the original petition and the first amended petition, the defendant requisitioned the respective hulls and the contracts for their completion, and under the rule laid down in the case of Omnia Co. v.