Case law

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.

Dynasciences Corp. v. United States

23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,511 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 8, 1977

Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1 (1974). … Ball Co. v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 223, 254 , 531 F.2d 993, 1010 (1976); Boeing Co. v.

O'Callaghan

578 F.2d 1390 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 27, 1978

Devine v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 998 (1975); Eurell v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 273 , 566 F.2d 1146 (1977); McGahey v. United States, 213 Ct.Cl. 717 (1977); Pratt v. United States, 215 Ct.Cl. 987 (1977). … Brundage v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 502, 505-06, 509-10, 510-11 , 504 F.2d 1382, 1384, 1386-87, 1387 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 998 (1975).

Chemical Technology, Inc. v. United States

645 F.2d 934 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 25, 1981

It cited Pacific Architects and Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 499 , 491 F.2d 734 (1974). The Board then moved on to Womack, supra, and stated: *138 In Travis T. Womack, Jr., et al. v. … Womack v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 399, 413 , 389 F.2d 793, 801 (1968).

Gelco Builders & Burjay Construction Corp. v. The United States

369 F.2d 992 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 16, 1966

Hoi-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, supra. Accordingly, the Board's decision with respect thereto is not subject to Wunderlich Act finality, 68 Stat. 81 , 41 U.S.C. §§ 321-322 (1958 ed.). … The Board denied the motion.

Kelly v. United States

10 Cl. Ct. 579 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 13, 1986

The Board’s Decision This court may overturn a decision of the Board when it is unsupported by substantial evidence or when there is noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations. Jordan v. … In arriving at its decision, the Board concluded that plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove her case. The Board distinguished Barber v.

Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. United States

656 F.2d 644 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 29, 1981

plaintiff made no effort either to clarify its position by advising the board within 90 days that it objected to the board’s treatment of its notice or that it desired to proceed under the act, but before the board. … Coil v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 595 (1981). 41 U.S.C. § 606 (Supp. II 1978). 41 U.S.C. § 609 (a)(1) (Supp. II 1978).

San Millan v. United States

153 F. Supp. 370 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1957

Dismuke v. United States, 297 U. S. 167 ; Uhley v. United States, 137 C. Cls. 275 ; Gordon v. United States, 129 C. Cls. 270 ; Suter v. United States, decided this day, ante, p. 466. … Some, but not all, of those documents had been submitted in support of plaintiff’s previous applications for hearings before a retiring board and a physical evaluation board.

Aube v. United States

25 Cl. Ct. 351 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 20, 1992

Mitchell v. United States, 930 F.2d 893, 896 (Fed.Cir.1991). ‘The fact that this court has jurisdiction to review actions of military correction boards is not disputable.’ Armstrong v. … v.

Michienzi v. United States

207 Ct. Cl. 484 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 11, 1975

This case is not like Boyd v. … Under Army regulations, a “flagged” officer’s name goes before Selection Boards just like others, but the Board is not informed of the “flag”. Borys v. United States, 201 Ct.

Wpc Enterprises, Incorporated v. The United States

323 F.2d 874 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1964

Co. v. United States, 98 Ct.Cl. 256, 280 (1943); Ring Constr. Corp. v. United States, 162 F.Supp. 190 , 192, 142 Ct.Cl. 731, 734 (1958); Jefferson Constr. Co. v. … Civil Aeronautics Board, 240 F.2d 867, 874 (C.A.D.C., 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 941 , 77 S.Ct. 815 , 1 L.Ed.2d 760 (1957); Adams v. Witmer, 271 F.2d 29, 36-37 (C.A.9, 1958).

Crowe v. United States

452 F.2d 1034 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 10, 1971

Facts which appear to be the same in the material respects, or more favorable to that plaintiff, have been considered at length by this court in an opinion announced today, O'Callahan v. … In Mathis v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 145 , 391 F. 2d 938 (1968), plaintiff had *568 gone before Boards of both kinds and we recognized no difference between them respecting limitation of actions.

Bostwick-Batterson Company v. United States

283 F.2d 956 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1960

Torres v. United States, 112 P.Supp. 363, 126 Ct.Cl. 76, 79 . … Corp. v.

Prestex, Inc. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,508 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 15, 1983

. §§ 321 , 322 (1976), of a decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board). … It is well established that the findings of fact of the Board are final, if supported by substantial evidence; however, the Board’s legal conclusion can be re-examined by this court. Chemithon Corp. v.

Foster Wheeler Corp. v. United States

513 F.2d 588 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 19, 1975

Co. v. United States, 149 Ct.Cl. 514, 518 (1960). To the extent that the Board’s decision was one of law, this court is, of course, free to arrive at its own conclusions. Tombigbee Constructors v. … V Assumption of the Risk of Impossibility The Board found 20 that FWC generally assumed “contractual responsibility and risk” of impossibility.

Burns v. United States

9 Cl. Ct. 273 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 5, 1985

Kester v. Horner, 778 F.2d 1565, 1570 (Fed.Cir.1985); see also Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312-13 , 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2566-67 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976); Puglisi v. … Hary v.

N. Fiorito Co. v. United States

180 Ct. Cl. 1285 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1967

Co. v. United States, decided today, [ 177 Ct. Cl. 234, 244-249 , 368 F. 2d 847, 854-57 ]. This suit having been brought, no subsequent suit on the same contract would normally be allowable. Plaintiff bears that risk. … United States v. Callahan Walker Constr. Co., 317 U.S. 56 (1942); United States v. Blair, 321 U.S. 730 (1944); United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Co., 328 U.S. 234 (1946); P.L.S. Coat & Suit Corp. v.

Optimal Data Corp. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,708 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 16, 1989

Vista Scientific Corp. v. *727 United States, 808 F.2d 50, 52 (Fed.Cir.1986). On appeal, a plaintiff may attack both a board’s conclusions of law and its findings of fact. … See, e.g., Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct.Cl. 757, 762-64 , 345 F.2d 833, 836-37 (1965) (cited with approval in United States v.

Mitchell v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 1329 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1992

Resort to a correction board is permissive, not mandatory, and therefore does not toll the running of the statute of limitations. Hurick, 782 F.2d at 987 ; Ellzey v. … Marsh, 787 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir. 1986) (plaintiff’s cause of action accrued at the time of correction board’s decision); Linfors v.

National Line Co.

214 Ct. Cl. 807 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 21, 1977

Under the rule of Nager Electric Co. v. United States, 184 Ct. … Nager Electric Co., Inc. v. United States, supra, 184 Ct. Cl. at 401 , 396 F.2d at 982-83 .