Case law

Taylor v. United States

163 F. Supp. 652 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1958

Wales v. United States, 132 C. Cls. 765 ; Beamish v. United States, 130 C. Cls. 767 ; and Holliday v. United States, 128 C. Cls. 647 . … Furlong v. United States, 138 C. Cls. 843 (1957), and Rosnick v. United States, 132 C. Cls. 1 (1955). There is, however, nothing that would lead us to such a *130 conclusion.

Bielec v. United States

456 F.2d 690 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1972

Harris v. United States, 153 Ct. Cl. 425 (1961). … See Ganse v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 183, 186 , 376 F. 2d 900 (1967); Price v. United States, 112 Ct. Cl. 198, 200 , 80 F. Supp. 542, 543 (1948); Coleman, v. United States, 100 Ct. Cl. 41 (1943); Dvorkin v.

DeWitt v. United States

204 Ct. Cl. 274 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 17, 1974

II In Commissioner v. … Fox, supra; and Apt v.

Tatelbaum ex rel. Creditors of A. Hoen & Co. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,502 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 10, 1986

The Board’s findings of fact are presumptively correct. Arundel Corp. v. United States, 207 Ct.Cl. 84, 99 , 515 F.2d 1116, 1124 (1975). … Plaintiff carries a heavy burden in seeking to set aside factual determinations made by a Board. Donald M. Drake Co. v. United States, 194 Ct.Cl. 549, 553 , 439 F.2d 169, 171 (1971).

Beneficial Corp. v. United States

9 Cl. Ct. 119 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 4, 1985

In support of its contention, plaintiff cites Brown v. … In Brown v. Helvering, the taxpayer was the general agent of several fire insurance companies and received certain commissions on the policies written each year.

Beeman v. United States

65 Ct. Cl. 431 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1928

Badeau v. United States, 130 U. S. 439, 452 . See also Montgomery v. United States, 19 C. Cls. 370, 376 ; Bennett v. United States, Id. 379, 388, and Palen v. United States, Id. 389, 394. … The court held that his promotion was not preceded by the .statutory requirement of an examination and recommendation by a board of naval officers, and by a board of medical officers as to his physical qualifications, and

Demo v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 349 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 15, 1983

The plaintiff’s alleged cause of action accrued at the time of his discharge (Mathis v. … United States, 214 Ct.Cl. 383, 386 , 556 F.2d 1104, 1106 (1977)); and adverse actions by the administrative boards on the plaintiff’s requests for relief did not create a new cause of action (Friedman v.

Martin v. Department of the Air Force

227 Ct. Cl. 742 · United States Court of Claims · May 22, 1981

Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, No. DA075209013; Coefield v. Department of the Navy, No. SF07509012; and Russell v. Department of the Interior, No. SF075209018. … The Board refused the appeal because of failure to meet these criteria.

Franklin E. Penny Co. v. United States

524 F.2d 668 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 22, 1975

In Paccon, Inc. v. United States, 185 Ct. … In an early case, Beck & Pauli Lithographing Co. v.

Bromley Contracting Co. v. United States

652 F.2d 70 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 13, 1981

Plaintiff appeals from a decision of the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) denying its claim for $15,000 compensation due to allegedly defective Government drawings. … Plaintiff appealed to the Board, which denied the claim on February 26, 1975.

Gulf Refining Co. v. United States

58 Ct. Cl. 559 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 29, 1923

S. 81 ; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U. S. 146,156 . The same rules are applicable in the ascertainment of values of property taken during a war as are applicable for property taken during times of peace. … The Shipping Board rates were accepted for the vessels used in the owner’s service.

Eastern School, a Partnership Consisting of Frank Simon, Benjamin Eizenman, Oscar Goldman, Phillip Laster and Samuel Frank v. The United States

381 F.2d 421 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1967

See Klein v. United States, 285 F.2d 778, 786 , 152 Ct.Cl. 8, 23 (1961); Kamen Soap Products Co. v. United States, 124 F.Supp. 608, 620 , 129 Ct.Cl. 619, 642 (1954); United States v. … Citing Campbell v.

James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States

73 Ct. Cl. 49 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 1, 1931

Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. United States, 191 U. S. 159 ; Ackerlind v. United States, 240 U. S. 531 . … v.

Gordon v. United States

162 Ct. Cl. 740 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1963

See Patten v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 131 (1963). … In the event an officer is ordered before a retiring board and the board is of the opinion that he is capable of performing limited service, the board is authorized to recommend that the officer be considered for limited

Turner v. United States

231 Ct. Cl. 882 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 13, 1982

Abruzzo v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 731, 737 , 513 F.2d 608, 611 (1975); accord, Denton v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 188, 200 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963 (1975); Mercereau v. United States, 155 Ct. … Hary v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 10, 17 , 618 F.2d 704, 707-08 (1980).

Blount, Inc. v. United States

15 Cl. Ct. 146 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 13, 1988

Federal Corp. v. *148 United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 212, 214 (1983). In that connection, Warwick Construction, Inc. v. … Multi-Roof Systems Co. v. United States, 5 Cl.Ct. 245, 248 (1984).

Beacon Oil Co. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,025 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 18, 1985

Case law suggests that such an election, on the facts of this case, should be considered binding on plaintiff and the Board. In W.M. Schlosser Co. v. … Schlosser Co. v. United States, supra, 705 F.2d at 1340. See also United States v. Hamilton Enterprises, Inc., 711 F.2d 1038 , 1043 n. 3 (Fed.

Siegel v. United States

148 Ct. Cl. 420 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1960

Ex parte Reed, 100 U.S. 13 ; Spencer v. United States, 121 C. Cls. 558 ; Prichard v. United States, 138 C. Cls. 212 . … Board.

Holder v. Department of the Army

670 F.2d 1007 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 10, 1982

IV 1980). *423 In Appeal No. 26-80 the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in the case of Holder v. Department of the Army, No. … SF075299044 (July 26,1979), and the order of the board on November 5,1980, denying the petition for review, are affirmed. In Appeal No. 25-80 the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in the case of Holder v.

Wunderlich v. United States

117 Ct. Cl. 92 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1950

Cls. 1, 33 ; Callahan Construction Co. v. United States, 91 C. Cls. 538, 616-617 ; Ruff v. United States, 96 C. Cls. 148, 165 ; B-W Construction Company v. United States, 97 C. Cls. 92, 118-119 ; John McShain, Inc. v. … See our decision of today in McWilliams Dredging Co. v. United States, No. 48894, for an explanation of why such a decision of the Board does not foreclose the contractor from litigating the question in a court.