Case law

Andrews v. United States

6 Cl. Ct. 204 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 21, 1984

In Stewart v. … Brundage v.

Nickell v. United States

123 Ct. Cl. 859 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1952

He appeared before an Army Retiring Board on February 21, 1947. … The issues involved in this case from April 8 to September 29,1948, are identical with those involved in the case of Ramsey v. United States, No. 50325, ante, p. 504.

Van Dorn Iron Works Co. v. United States

13 F. Supp. 758 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 2, 1936

court in Old Colony Trust Co. v. … The other cases cited by the defendant, Ohio Steel Foundry Co. v. United States (Ct.Cl.) 38 F.(2d) 144 ; James v. United States (Ct.Cl.) 38 F.(2d) 140 ; James et al. v.

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.

Kaiser Industries Corporation v. The United States

340 F.2d 322 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1965

Tobin Quarries, Inc. v. … On the other hand, who can tell what difference the important fact involved might have made in the Board’s consideration of the case? Cf. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co. v.

Simplex Manufacturing Corp.

506 F.2d 1406 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 8, 1974

Young Associates, Inc. v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 438 , 471 F. 2d 618 (1973). By its action or inaction, it indicated its adoption of the Board’s. … Gresham & Co. v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 97 , 470 F. 2d 542 (1972).

Harvin v. United States

661 F.2d 885 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 23, 1981

Relying on Mapp v. … In Silverman v.

Troup Bros. v. United States

643 F.2d 719 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1980

Were a finding necessary on this point alone, no need would exist for a remand to the Board. Ordnance Research, Inc. v. United States, supra. … Co. v. United States, 151 Ct. Cl. 75 (1960).

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).

Ambrose-Augusterfer Corporation v. The United States

394 F.2d 536 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1968

Finally, both parties on brief have without hesitation assumed that the Board concluded that the plaintiff should have known that the wiring ran through the ducts. Cf. Sundstrand Turbo v. … See Hollerbach v. United States, supra, 233 U.S. at 172 , 34 S.Ct. 553 . The Board found that plaintiff’s inspection was very limited and rather casual.

Pelliccia v. United States

525 F.2d 1035 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 19, 1975

See, for example, DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 979 , 413 F. 2d 1147 (1969) and the court’s most recent decision in this area, International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. United States, 206 Ct. … C. & Associates Construction Co. v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 285 , 367 F. 2d 586 (1966) and Farwell Co. v. United States, 137 Ct. Cl. 832 , 148 F. Supp. 947 (1957).

Wales v. United States

145 Ct. Cl. 113 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 11, 1959

It appears that said Board again found plaintiff fit for military duty as of January 20, 1950, in accordance with the conclusion of the Physical Evaluation Board. After carefully considering the former case of Wales v. … Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351 ; Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U. S. 591 .

Wm. A. Smith Contracting Co., Inc. v. United States

292 F.2d 854 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1961

In Wunderlich et al. v. … Consequently, the decision by the Board of Contract Appeals was not “final and conclusive,” wherefore plaintiff is entitled to a review of the claim in the instant proceeding. Associated Traders, Inc. v.

Allied Materials & Equipment Co.

24 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,810 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1977

The Board’s findings as to the termination and events leading up to it, thus are inferentially relevant to our inquiry, and therefore admissible into evidence now, see National Factors, Inc. v. United States, 204 Ct. … Kalvar Corp. v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 192 , 543 F.2d 1298 (1976); Librach v. United States, 147 Ct. Cl. 605 (1959).

Morderosian v. United States

228 Ct. Cl. 826 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 31, 1981

Huff v. United States, 216 Ct. Cl.383, 385 (1978). … Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl.285, 298, 594 F.2d 804, 811 (1979). Plaintiff has not shown that the Correction Board’s decision was improper.

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.

Woodard v. United States

167 Ct. Cl. 306 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 17, 1964

Weiner v. United States, 148 Ct. Cl. 445 (1960). … . *315 Defendant, citing and relying on Friedman, Executrix, v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 1 (1962), 310 F. 2d 381 , cert. denied in Lipp, et ad. v.

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.

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).