Case law

Moran Bros. v. United States

61 Ct. Cl. 73 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 14, 1925

It is well established that where the contract provides, as in this case, for a determination by a board of the compensation to be paid because of changes, the decisions of the board are conclusive, in the absence of fraud … provision that delays attributable to the Government would entitle the contractor to a corresponding extension of time protects him against the deductions for liquidated damages during such period but does not contemplate immunity

Bolding v. United States

565 F.2d 663 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 16, 1977

The fact that the Raddings may also have qualified as responsible officers does not acquit plaintiff. … In view of the shortage of funds, Bolding participated in the establishment of priorities for payment of suppliers and other creditors.

Sun Eagle Corp. v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,119 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1991

However, the burden is on plaintiff to establish jurisdiction. Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748 (citing cases). … As derived from the CDA and case law, the following four-part analysis will instruct whether plaintiff’s November 29, 1988 letter qualifies as a claim: whether the letter clearly and unequivocally 1) asserted specific rights

Solar Turbines, Inc. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,618 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1989

But it is not necessary for this court to address that broad issue because on the particular facts of this case, plaintiff’s request for funds clearly would not qualify under Section (c)(2) as a “routine request for payment … If the Navy had decided that it would give no more, the request for an additional $11.5 million clearly would be “in dispute.”

Estate of McCabe v. United States

475 F.2d 1142 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 16, 1973

The facts of the instant case however show as clearly as in those cases a retained life interest. … HorkiNS : As the beneficiary of the irrevocable trust established by my husband, E. F.

Willems Industries, Inc. v. United States

295 F.2d 822 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 1, 1961

In order to qualify for such credits, these expenditures must be properly documented and described for review of our comptroller. … He also named several qualified engineers and suggested that one of them should be put in charge of the operations in British Guiana.

Agway, Inc. v. United States

524 F.2d 1194 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 22, 1975

Further it is clearly stipulated that plaintiff and United both operated as corporations under their respective state laws. … The facts of this case establish that plaintiff’s redemption of stock (by United) is in § 302(b) (1) language a redemption “not essentially equivalent to a dividend.”

ITT Corp. v. United States

17 Cl. Ct. 199 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1989

establishing compensation for fifth amendment takings. … The waiver of sovereign immunity under section 1498 must be strictly construed. See Decca, Ltd. v.

Solar Turbines, Inc. v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,092 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1991

Therein, after discussing the applicable law, the court, in essence, invited a summary judgment motion from defendant because it appeared that profits on future sales were too remote or speculative to qualify as compen-sable … But the government clearly would receive something of additional value if the PMTM were binding, Le., Solar’s agreement that the contract should be terminated.

Albert Piccone v. The United States

407 F.2d 866 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 14, 1969

The regulation is clearly meant to save a government employee from the awkward position of prosecuting two separate personnel actions at the same time, especially where he may be forced to take inconsistent stands in the … recover his salary (less, of course, any amount earned in other employment) for the time between his removal in October 1961 and April 11, 1962, without further proof— and also since April 11, 1962, provided that he can establish

Johnson v. United States

173 Ct. Cl. 561 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 12, 1965

Your attention is invited to Clauses 2 and 12 of the General Provisions of the contract (Standard Form 32) wherein it is clearly established that it is your responsibility to continue with the contract work until such time … With respect to your claim for additional compensation, it will be necessary for you to clearly establish that the amount of art work performed by you is, in fact, an increase over that contemplated at the time the contract

Mille Lac Band of Chippewas v. United States

46 Ct. Cl. 424 · United States Court of Claims · May 29, 1911

The question of Indian policy is a political one, immune from the action of the courts. (Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S., 294 ; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S., 553 .) … (Kappler’s Treaties, vol. 2, pp. 19-22.) *461 No mere license to fish and hunt was conferred upon the Mille Lac Indians by article 12 of the treaty of 1864; if so, the language used would have clearly expressed the same.

Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. United States

549 F.2d 767 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 23, 1977

As to the qualifying language on the procurement endorsements referring to "* * * FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW BY NAVY COST INSPECTION SERVICE AS TO REASONABLENESS OF PRICE,” there is no evidence in the record indicating … The GAO’s reports clearly reflect the view that the Navy was at least as much responsible as the plaintiff for failure to timely uncover the excessive pricing that occurred.

Charlson v. United States

525 F.2d 1046 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 19, 1975

The record clearly demonstrates that Char-Lynn had not by 1961 established a worldwide program to sell its orbit motors and it was thus willing to give up its unexercised rights. … Particularly, the record clearly establishes Mr. Charl-son’s desire to reduce his workload at Char-Lynn. Mr.

Hart v. United States

17 Cl. Ct. 481 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 23, 1989

The court found that addressing the factual question whether plaintiff had twenty years of retirement-qualifying service necessitated “further factual inquiries” and therefore precluded application of the continuing claim … Moreover, Friedman was decided after Roberts , and Friedman clearly authorizes continuing claim treatment for cases involving sufficiently “sharp and narrow” fact questions. Friedman v.

McLean Hospital Corp. v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 1144 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 14, 1992

Clearly, the term “significant risk” encompasses the potential for causing harm in the future as well as in the present. … Clearly, the evidence shows that Amy was not ready to be transferred to an RTC as of August 31, 1984. Dr.

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. United States

13 Cl. Ct. 402 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 21, 1987

Rather, one must look to the reasons why Congress imposed strict liability as the general rule in order to determine what standard of care is required to qualify for the specific exceptions. … The past experience of plaintiff and other railroads clearly establishes that vandalism of this nature is very rare, an event that can be expected to occur perhaps only once in several million tank-car movements.

Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. The United States

392 F.2d 592 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 15, 1968

The rest of the Mexican statute goes on to establish a schedular tax system. … The direct, exact, and clearly identifiable cost of railroad car financing is known, and it should be used.

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 446 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1992

Gillis was qualified as an expert in accounting with a special expertise in accounting for Indian trust funds. Mr. … This evidence was understood clearly by the court at trial.

Dow Chemical Co. v. United States

20 Cl. Ct. 623 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 8, 1990

VALIDITY The statutory scheme established by Congress allows an alleged infringer to defend on the ground that the patent is invalid. … Although he did attempt to qualify that statement at trial with testimony that with all things being equal the blind flushing techniques would allow either an equal amount of slurry or just a bit less, this qualifying testimony