Case law

Rome Brass & Copper Co. v. United States

60 Ct. Cl. 280 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 2, 1925

This claim was presented to the War Department Claims Board, and relief was denied by that board. The decision of the board was affirmed by the Secretary of War. … Decisions of the War Department Appeal Section, War Department Claims Board, vol. 7, p. 327.

Esgate v. United States

186 Ct. Cl. 207 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 13, 1968

Brown v. United States, 184 Ct. Cl. 501, 516 , 396 F. 2d 989, 999 (1968). We take that course and grant defendant’s motion because, as already said, the Board’s decision must be upheld on the existing record. … See McEaddy v. United States, 152 Ct. Cl. 311, 327-29 (1961) ; Stephens v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 365, 369 , 358 F. 2d 951, 952 (1966).

Mil-Tech Systems, Inc. v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,719 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 3, 1984

Charles Brown’s resignation from Mil-Tech was presented at the September 18 meeting, and three of ATACS’ five-member board became the new directors of Mil-Tech. … Steinthal & Co. v. Seamans, 455 F.2d at 1305 ; Scanwell Laboratories v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859, 864 (D.C.Cir.1970); International Association of Firefighters, Local F-100 v.

Ozark Dam Constructors v. United States

153 Ct. Cl. 120 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1961

York’s testimony was wrong, it was deliberately false, since it described repeated contacts with the plaintiff Brown & Boot and the responses to those contacts. … United States v. Foley Co., 329 U.S. 64 .

Browne v. United States

356 F.2d 546 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1966

In Gordy v. … On July 19, 1952, the board of directors of Housing met to consider J. Browne’s proposal. On that date, Housing wrote a letter to J.

City of Saint Louis v. United States

9 Ct. Cl. 455 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1873

It is sufficient for the purposes of this opinion to say, that Brown’s survey contained within its out-boundaries nearly double the quantity of land claimed by the inhabitants of Oar-ondelet in 1808 before the board of commissioners … They had doubtless relied on that of Brown.

Ozark Dam Constructors, a Joint Venture v. United States

288 F.2d 913 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1961

York’s testimony was wrong, it was deliberately false, since it described repeated contacts with the plaintiff Brown & Root and the responses to those contacts. … United States v. Howard P. Foley Co., 329 U.S. 64 , 67 S.Ct. 154 , 91 L.Ed. 44 . A fortiori, it is not liable when the contract contains the exculpatory clause.

Lyons v. District of Columbia

19 Ct. Cl. 642 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 2, 1884

This court has repeatedly held that an allowance made by the Board of Audit did not conclude the rights of the parties, and that ruling has been sustained by the Supreme Court. (District of Columbia v. Cluss, 103 U. S. … R., 111 ; Adams’s Case, id., 351; Brown’s Case, id., 402; Campbell & Eslin’s Case, 18 C. Cls. R., 193 .) This $1,328 having been paid through the Board of Audit in mistake of fact, should be allowed to the defendant.

Cohn v. United States

15 Cl. Ct. 778 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 21, 1988

Because this court does not sit on a “sort of super Correction Board,” Reale v. … See Etheredge v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 736, 742 (1985) (remand to correction board).

Jefferson Construction Co. v. United States

151 Ct. Cl. 75 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1960

Browne and Associates (hereinafter referred to as “Browne”) to prepare the plans and specifications, under the supervision of the District. … Upon completion of Browne’s draft of the specifications, Browne then submitted it to the District for review and approval. 7.

William A. Smith Contracting Co., Inc. Of Missouri, and Brown & Root, Inc. v. United States

292 F.2d 847 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1961

United States v. Howard P. Foley Co., 1946, 329 U.S. 64 , 67 S.Ct. 154 , 91 L.Ed. 44 . … Fuller Co. v. United States, 1947, 69 F.Supp. 409, 415 , 108 Ct.Cl. 70 , where the Government was tardy, without “an excusable reason,” in furnishing models for the Archives Building; Kehm Corporation v.

Computer Wholesale Corp.

566 F.2d 1189 · United States Court of Claims · May 27, 1977

Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 557 (1962); Austin v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 719, 723 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 911 (1975); Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. … If plaintiff had pleaded a proper claim, defendant would be able to claim a setoff or counterclaim for the liquidated damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1503 or § 2508. *789 Brown v. United States, 207 Ct.

Brister & Koester Lumber Corp. v. United States

90 F. Supp. 695 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1950

Merritt v. United States, 267 U.S. 338 , 45 S.Ct. 278 , 69 L.Ed. 643 ; Continental Illinois National Bank et al. v. United States, 81 F.Supp. 596 , 112 Ct.Cl. 563 ; Petrin et al. v. United States, 90 Ct.Cl. 670 ; H. … I-Iyde Park Clothes, Inc. v. United States, supra.

William S. Gray & Co. v. United States

35 F.2d 968 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1925

The Board of Tax Appeals set aside the disallowance and allowed 217 per cent. In Livingston & Co. v. United States, 67 Ct. … A. 797, 79 per cent, allowed by commissioner and about 87 per cent, by board; Record Abstract Co., 2 B. T. A. 628, 59 per cent, allowed by commissioner, approved by board; Brown & Brown, Inc., 10 B. T.

Friedman v. United States

310 F.2d 381 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 7, 1962

Similarly, in Brown v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 557 , the serviceman was released in 1946 (after appearing before a Retiring Board) without disability retirement pay. … Cl. 485 ; Suter v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 466 , cert. denied, 355 U.S. 926 ; Proper v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 511 ; Friedman v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 239 ; Brown v. United States, 141 Ct.

Casey v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 234 · United States Court of Claims · May 13, 1985

Simmons v. Brown, 497 F.Supp. 173, 178 (D.Md.1980). … Simmons v. Brown, supra, 497 F.Supp. at 178 . To the extent that Army regulations conflict with those of the Department of Defense, the service regulations must give way.

Board of Field Officers of South Carolina Troops v. United States

20 Ct. Cl. 18 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 12, 1885

R., 280 ; Carlisle & Henderson v. The United States, 16 Wall., 147 , 8 C. Cls. R., 153 ; United States v Insurance Co., 22 Wall., 99 .)

Harris v. United States

4 Cl. Ct. 418 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1984

United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1502 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969); Quality Furniture Rentals v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 136, 139 (1983) (Kozinski, C.J.). … United States v. John C. Grimberg Co., 702 F.2d 1362 (Fed.Cir.1983); Brown v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 31, 48 (1983) (Gibson, J.); Public Service Co. of Colorado v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 380, 383 (1983) (Seto, J.).

Roche v. District of Columbia

18 Ct. Cl. 217 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 5, 1883

(Bond et al. v. Newark, 19 N. J., 376; State et al. v. Hoboken, 36 N. J. Law R., 378; Schman v. Seymour, 24 N. J. Equity R., 143; Hodges v. Buffalo, 2 Denio, 110 .) … R., 127 ; Adams's Case, ibid., 364; Brown’s Case, ibid., 420.)

Raymond F. Pauley v. The United States

440 F.2d 426 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1971

But the provision is flexible and, as pointed out in Browning v. … See Browning v. United States, swpra. In Browning the plaintiff, also an employee of the Department of Agriculture, was separated for failure to accept reassignment.