Case law

Muse v. United States

13 Cl. Ct. 372 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1987

Brundage v. … Pepper v.

Datronics Engineers, Inc. v. The United States

418 F.2d 1371 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1969

Luria Bros. & Co. v. United States, 369 F.2d 701 , 177 Ct.Cl. 676 (1966); WRB Corp. v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 409 (1968). … See Red Circle Corp. v. United . States, 398 F.2d 836 , 185 Ct.Cl. 1 (1968) ; but cf. Air-A-Plane Corp. v. United States, 408 F.2d 1030 , 187 Ct.Cl. 269, 281 (n. 9) (1969) ; J. L. Simmons Co. v.

R.G. Robbins & Co. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,906 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 14, 1983

Altimont, Inc. v. United States, 217 Ct.Cl. 628 , 579 F.2d 622 (1978). … Astro-Space Labs, Inc. v. United States, 200 Ct.Cl. 282 , 296, 470 F.2d 1003, 1011 (1972); Space Corp. v. United States, 200 Ct.Cl. 1, 6 , 470 F.2d 536, 539 (1972). .

Security National Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, Kansas, as Assignee of Miller Bros. Construction Company v. The United States

397 F.2d 984 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 14, 1968

Jones Construction Co. v. … In Hoffman v.

Southwest Welding & Manufacturing Company v. The United States

373 F.2d 982 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1967

Board of Commissioners of Port of New Orleans v. United States, 69 Ct.Cl. 52, 58 (1930). … See also Poirier & McLane Corp. v.

Kisco Co. v. United States

610 F.2d 742 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 14, 1979

See Bailey Specialized Buildings, Inc. v. United States, 186 Ct. … Casebolt Co. v. United States, 190 Ct. Cl. 783, 787 , 421 F.2d 710, 712-13 (1970); Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 450, 460 , 455 F.2d 556, 561-62 (1972).

Planning Research Corp. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,964 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 30, 1983

Based upon a careful review of the Board’s findings and the application of the solicitation-prescribed criteria to the findings, I [Mr. Heffelfinger] confirm the Board’s relative rankings. … See Brown v. United States, 396 F.2d 989 , 184 Ct.Cl. 501 (1968); Beckham v.

John A. Johnson & Sons, Inc. v. United States

180 Ct. Cl. 969 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1967

Co. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 145 , 319 F. 2d 135 (1963); Consolidated Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 188 (1963); Cannon Constr. Co. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 94 , 319 F. 2d 173 (1963). … Co. v. United States, supra; Cannon Constr. Co. v. United States, supra, 162 Ct. Cl. at 105, 319 F. 2d at 179.

Elston Co. v. United States

21 F. Supp. 267 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 6, 1937

In Clarke v. Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Co., 280 U. … The defendant suggests that the Board cases just referred to were decided prior to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Clarke v. Haberle Crystal Springs Co., supra, and Renzie-hausen v. Lucas, supra.

Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. United States

77 Ct. Cl. 57 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 6, 1933

Knapp v. United States, 46 C.Cls. 601; Coleman v. United States, 152 U.S. 96 ; Bigby v. United States, 188 U.S. 400 . In Bigby v. … In Coleman v.

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. .

Akol v. United States

166 Ct. Cl. 182 · United States Court of Claims · May 15, 1964

The report of this Board constitutes a “solid administrative finding” of disability, as that phrase was used in Aflague, et al. v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 80, 91 , 309 F. 2d 753, 758 (1962). … Stanford, Plaintiff No. 27) v. United States, 165 Ct.

Dickson v. United States

159 Ct. Cl. 185 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 7, 1962

See War Department Technical Manual 12-245, quoted in finding 32; Weiner v. United States, 148 Ct. Cl. 445 (1960); Harper v. United States, decided this day, ante, p. 135. … Cuyahoga County, Ohio v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 307 , 294 F. 2d 775 .

McCarthy v. United States

10 Cl. Ct. 573 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 15, 1986

Plaintiff cited Barber v. … The Board’s Decision This court may overturn a decision of the Board when it is unsupported by substantial evidence or when there is non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Jordan v.

Jackson v. United States

297 F.2d 939 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 12, 1962

McMullen v. United States, 100 Ct. Cl. 328 , cert. denied, 321 U.S. 790 . … Thus, it can readily be seen that the correction Board did give consideration to plantiff’s reasons for believing that he should be reinstated. However, as stated by this court in Peterson v. United States, 155 Ct.

Richard L. Schlegel v. The United States

416 F.2d 1372 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 17, 1969

Brown v. United States, 396 F.2d 989 , 184 Ct.Cl. 501 (1968); Beckham v. United States, supra. … Brown v. United States, supra. VII From a careful review of the entire record, it is concluded that the plaintiff’s removal was not the result of arbitrary or capricious action.

Flexible Metal Hose Manufacturing Co. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,120 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 13, 1984

Plaintiff has to meet a heavy burden in order to establish that, on the record before the Board, the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. See Koppers Co. v. … The plaintiff has failed to show that the record before the Board does not support the Board’s findings and conclusions. See Sundstrand Turbo v. United States, 182 Ct.Cl. 31, 60 , 389 F.2d 406, 422-23 (1968).

Eckstein v. United States

10 F. Supp. 231 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 4, 1935

We think these facts place this case outside the principle announced in Gillespie v. State of Oklahoma, supra; Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., supra; Marland v. … In Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., supra, the court stated that: “We are disposed to apply the doctrine of Gillespie v.

Robert L. Guyler v. The United States

314 F.2d 506 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 6, 1963

Paragraph 27-8 of the specifications specifies that interior areas to be painted should include all wood, metal, concrete masonry units, gypsum board, cement-asbestos board, and similar surfaces, except where otherwise specified … Garrison v. United States, 7 Wall. 688, 690 , 19 L.Ed. 277 .

Gresham & Co. v. United States

470 F.2d 542 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1972

Foster Sportswear Co. v. United States, 186 Ct. … Chernick v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 498 , 372 F. 2d 492 *121 (1967); Chris Berg, Inc. v. Unnited States, 186 Ct. Cl. 389 , 404 F. 2d 364 (1968); J. A. Jones Constr. Co. v. United States, 182 Ct.