Case law

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.

Coates v. Department of the Air Force

230 Ct. Cl. 935 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 30, 1982

In its May 26, 1981 decision, the mspb considered the issue of whether the time limit for filing an appeal should be waived for good cause, the criteria for which is set out by the board in Alonzo v. … See also McKechnie v. United States, 227 Ct. Cl. 113 , 648 F.2d 1300 (1981); Keeling v. United States, 172 Ct. Cl. 246, 250 (1965).

The Franklin Company v. The United States

381 F.2d 416 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1967

See Micrecord Corp. v. United States, 361 F.2d 1000, 1004 , 176 Ct.Cl. 46, 53 (1967); Williamsburg Drapery Co. v. United States, 369 F.2d 729, 735 , 177 Ct.Cl. -, - (1966); Cresswell v. … Franklin’s conduct during performance of the current contract likewise helps to sustain the Board’s conclusion. See Williamsburg Drapery Co. v.

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).

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. United States

7 Cl. Ct. 549 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 20, 1985

to be made to the plaintiff by the Maritime Subsidy Board. … Services, Inc. v. United States, 6 Cl.Ct. 257, 260 (1984); Thoen v. United States, 5 Cl.Ct. 823, 825 (1984); Milmark Services, Inc. v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 954, 956 (1982). See also Troup Bros. v.

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.

Mayer v. United States

201 Ct. Cl. 105 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 16, 1973

See Skaradowski v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 488 , 471 F. 2d 627 (1973). The Correction Boards undoubtedly do have equitable powers to be exercised in appropriate cases. … The decision of a military correction board will not be disturbed unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Muldonian v. United States, 193 Ct. Cl. 99 , 432 F. 2d 443 (1970).

Highway Products, Inc. v. United States

530 F.2d 911 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 28, 1976

Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 703, 715 (1971). Ruggiero v. United States, 190 Ct. Cl. 327 , 420 F. 2d 709 (1970); Bromion, Inc. v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 31 , 411 F. 2d 1020 (1969). Ruggiero v. … The board also has provided an equitable adjustment with respect to one Item that the Government should have warned plaintiff about and which It failed to recognize. Loral Corp. v. United States, 193 Ct.

Tilley v. United States

19 Cl. Ct. 33 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 11, 1989

Plaintiff raised no objection before the BOI that the Board had been improperly constituted without reserve officers. … Hankins v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 32 (1968); VanderMolen v. Stetson, 571 F.2d 617 (D.C.Cir.1977); Grimm v. Brown, 449 F.2d 654 (9th Cir.1971).

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company v. The United States

444 F.2d 547 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1971

United States v. Gurney, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch.) 333, 2 L.Ed. 638 (1808); Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213 , 6 L.Ed. 606 (1827); Bradley v. … Singer-General Precision, Inc. v. United States, 427 F.2d 1187, 1193 , 192 Ct.Cl. 435, 446-447 (1970); Sturm, supra; L. Rosenman Corp. v. United States, 390 F.2d 711, 714 , 182 Ct.Cl. 586, 590 (1968); Jack Stone Co. v.

William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. United States

72 Ct. Cl. 146 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 13, 1931

Central Union Trust Co. of New York v. Edwards, 282 Fed. 1008 ; Wisconsin Central Ry. Co. v. United States, 70 C. Cls. 203 . … King v. United States, 37 C. Cls. 428 ; Burton Coal Co. v. United States, 60 C. Cls. 294 ; Standard Dredging Co. v. United States, 71 C. Cls. 218 .

American Continental Corp. v. United States

22 Cl. Ct. 692 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 22, 1991

See, e.g., Fahey v. … V.

McBlair v. United States

19 Ct. Cl. 528 · United States Court of Claims · May 19, 1884

(The People v. … Att’y Gen., 603; 14 Stat., 92; Mimmack v. United States, U. S. R., 437.)

George Hyman Construction Co. v. United States

564 F.2d 939 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 19, 1977

However, a Board’s interpretation of a contract will be given careful consideration and accorded great respect. See Dale Ingram, Inc. v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 56 , 475 F.2d 1177 (1973); and Winston Brothers Co. v. … See Merando, Inc. v. United States, supra; Space Corp. v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 1, 5 , 470 F.2d 536, 538 (1972); Bishop Engineering Co. v. United States, 180 Ct.

Maney Aircraft Parts, Inc.

513 F.2d 638 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 13, 1974

See Maney Aircraft Parts, Inc. v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 159 , 453 F.2d 1260 (1972), and Maney Aircraft Parts, Inc. v. United States, 202 Ct. Cl. 54 , 479 F.2d 1350 (1973). … In the latter opinion we held that the plaintiff had failed to file its appeal with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the Board) within 30 days after the contracting officer had rendered his decision on a dispute

Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. United States

453 F.2d 759 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 21, 1972

Cl. 234 , 368 F. 2d 847 (1966), cited in Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States, 386 U.S. 503 (1967) ; Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 1 , 310 F. 2d 381 (1962), cert. denied 373 U.S. 932 (1963). … Pine v. United States, 178 Ct.

Giuliani Contracting Co. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,882 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 26, 1990

Roubin & Janeiro, Inc. v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 580 , 652 F.2d 70 (1981); Space Age Engineering, Inc. v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 164, 165 (1988); E.D.S. Federal Corp. v. … Tierney, Jr., Inc. v. United States, 226 Ct.Cl. 686, 687-88 (1981); Space Age Engineering, Inc., 2 Cl.Ct. at 165 . (3) Whether plaintiff initially chose to appeal its claims before a court or a board. David J.

Parker v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 399 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 28, 1983

board approval. … VanBourg v. Nitze, 388 F.2d 557, 561, 563 (D.C.Cir.1967). Resort to either of these correction boards, however, is permissive, not mandatory. Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct.Cl. at 11-12 , 310 F.2d at 387-88 . Ashe v.

Clark v. United States

151 Ct. Cl. 601 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1960

Leonard v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 91 (1955) ; Fredrickson v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 890 (1956); and Williams v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 513 (1959). … In Fredrickson , this court, relying on Leonard v.