Case law

American Marine Upholstery Company v. The United States

345 F.2d 577 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1965

Thus, it must be said that the Board of Contract Appeals’ decision on all factual matters above outlined was reasonable and based upon substantial evidence and is accorded finality. Automatic Screw Products Company v. … United States v. Blair, supra; United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Co., supra.

King v. United States

19 Cl. Ct. 703 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 13, 1990

The FY 1978, 1979, and 1980 selection boards did not promote plaintiff to commander. On August 13, 1979, plaintiff filed suit in the United States Court of Claims, King v. … (1970); Murphy v.

Wolf v. United States

168 Ct. Cl. 24 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 13, 1964

Andrews v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 126 (1963). … Hordechuck v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 492 . We think the decision of the Correction Board and the Secretary was arbitrary and not supported by the evidence.

Churchill Chemical Corp. v. United States

602 F.2d 358 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 18, 1979

See, e.g., Artisan Electronics Corp. v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 126, 134 , 499 F.2d 606, 611 (1974); DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 979, 991 ; 413 F.2d 1147, 1154 (1969); Radiation Technology, Inc. v. … Co. v. United States, 168 Ct. Cl. 873 (1964).

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 .

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).

Lsi Service Corporation v. United States

422 F.2d 1334 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 20, 1970

Sundstrand Turbo v. United States, 182 Ct.Cl. 31, 60 , 389 F.2d 406, 422-423 (1968). … See Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 358 , 393 F.2d 807 (1968).

Pender Peanut Corp. v. United States

20 Cl. Ct. 447 · United States Court of Claims · May 23, 1990

NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291-92 , 85 S.Ct. 980, 988 , 13 L.Ed.2d 839 (1965). The starting point for determining the parameters of agency authority is the language of the enabling statute itself. Consumer Prod. … Consequently, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) had authority to assess a penalty under § 128, the provision at issue. .

Dynalectron Corp.

199 Ct. Cl. 996 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 29, 1972

On the basis of the f oregoing, the court concludes that the decision of the Supreme Court in S & E Contractors, Inc. v. … United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966).

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.

Kurfess v. United States

169 Ct. Cl. 486 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 19, 1965

The Board recommended that he appear before a Naval Retiring Board. The Retiring Board affirmed the Survey Board’s findings and ordered plaintiff’s discharge for reason of physical disability. … In the absence of a clear showing that the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously and therefore unlawfully we will not disturb its decision. Wales v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 765, 771 (1955); Boland v.

Scratchley v. United States

96 Ct. Cl. 352 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 1, 1942

The sole question in the case is whether the plaintiff was retired May 27,1936 when the President approved the findings of the Board and its recommendation; or on August 1, 1936, the date recommended by the Board and the … Greenwald, Jr., v. The United States, 88 C. Cls. 264 , and Henry M. Butler v. The United States, 91 C. Cls. 88 , and other recent cases.

Dean v. United States

10 Cl. Ct. 563 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 11, 1986

The court in Barber v. … The Board’s Decision In arriving at its decision, the Board concluded that plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove her case.

Alloy Products Corp. v. United States

157 Ct. Cl. 376 · United States Court of Claims · May 9, 1962

In the case of Du Puy v. United States, 67 Ct. … Looney v. District of Columbia, 18 Ct. Cl. 8 ; The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 34 Ct. Cl. 484 ; Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 67 Ct.

O'Neil v. United States

6 Cl. Ct. 317 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 25, 1984

See Finn v. United States, 212 Ct.Cl. 353, 356 , 548 F.2d 340, 342 (1977); Craft v. United States, 210 Ct.Cl. 170 , 544 F.2d 468 (1976). … See Gerber v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 311 (1983).

Burnett Electronics Lab., Inc. v. United States

479 F.2d 1329 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1973

This claim, not within the Board’s jurisdiction (and not made before the Board), is entitled to a full, sometimes called de novo, hearing in which, however, any relevant findings of the Board are binding. … United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 412-13, 418-19 (1966). The parties are in agreement that this claim may be decided on the record made before the Board.

Scroggins v. United States

397 F.2d 295 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 14, 1968

The Board of Appeals and Keview, as well as the Commissioners, had before them Dr. … This is an issue which could have been, but was not, presented to the Board of Appeals and Review and to the Commissioners. Under Pine v. United States, 178 Ct.

Tecon Corporation, Green Construction Company, and Winston Brothers Company, Joint Venture, Trading as Tecon-Green-Winston v. The United States

411 F.2d 1271 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1969

Corp. v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 254, 262-266 (1962). … Co. v. United States, 149 Ct.Cl. 514, 518 (1960).

Donald M. Drake Company v. The United States

439 F.2d 169 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 19, 1971

Bateson-Stolte, Inc. v. United States, 172 F.Supp. 454, 456-457 , 145 Ct.Cl. 387, 391-392 (1959); Ragonese v. United States, 120 F.Supp. 768, 770 , 128 Ct.Cl. 156, 162 (1954). … The Board preferred the Government’s testimony. The Board’s conclusion rests on a balance of apparently equally credible and substantial testimony, and therefore cannot be overturned. Koppers Co. v.