Case law

Pacific Architects & Engineers Inc. v. United States

29 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,636 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 4, 1982

Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley Railway, 243 U.S. 281, 289 (1917). … Citing Swift, we have stated that the Indian Claims Commission, a quasi-judicial body, much as the board here is, correctly refused "to be bound by a stipulation on an issue of law * * *.” Sac and Fox Tribe v.

SMS Data Products Group, Inc. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,647 · United States Court of Claims · May 11, 1989

Schwabenbauer v. Board of Educ., 667 F.2d 305 , 313-14 (2d Cir.1981). Mere denials or conclusory statements, however, are not sufficient to create an evidentiary conflict. Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. … Neal & Co., Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 282, 287 (1987); see also Golder v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 513, 517 (1988); State of Illinois v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 399, 408 (1988); Bass v.

McCann v. United States

12 Cl. Ct. 286 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 29, 1987

Busby School v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 588, 595 (1985) (citing Little River Lumber Co. v. United States, 7 Cl.Ct. 492, 494 (1985); Patterson v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 932, 934 (1982)). … As our predecessor court said in Clark v.

Fredrickson v. United States

138 F. Supp. 265 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1956

On January 31,1950, a clinical board at the hospital found that plaintiff was permanently unfit to perform the duties of his rank of commander and recommended that he appear before a physical evaluation board. … The President duly approved the report of the Selection Board, and March 29,1950, pursuant to ALNAV 27-50, issued March 24, 1950, plaintiff was ordered to appear before a board of medical examiners at Oakland Naval Hospital

Maguire Industries, Inc. v. United States

86 F. Supp. 905 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 7, 1949

board”. … In Old Colony Trust Co. v.

Anderson v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 546 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1989

This court and its predecessor court, the Court of Claims, has consistently found that 5 U.S.C. § 8128 precludes review of the FECA board decisions. See Nolen v. … For this reason, the Board’s June 30, 1988 decision was in conformance with the established practice of the Board and conformed to all procedural requirements governing Board procedure on appeal.

Gulf & South American Steamship Co. v. United States

500 F.2d 549 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1974

Without agreeing in any way that issues under the Cost Besponsibilities article need go to the Board only where there is a dispute over the facts (cf. Zidell Explora tions, Inc. v. United States, 192 Ct. … Since the plaintiffs have all duly appealed to that Board, there is no problem of an untimely appeal such as defendant thought to be a bar in such cases as William Green Constr. Co. v. United States, 201 Ct.

Rust Engineering Co. v. United States

86 Ct. Cl. 461 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1938

of officials of the Treasury Department, of which board the contracting officer was not a member, solely on the ground that a ruling of the Comptroller General, by which the board considered itself bound, prohibited the … The cases of McCord v. United States, 9 C. Cls. 155 ; Moran Brothers Co. v. United States, 61 C. Cls. 73, 103 ; and Levering & Garrigues Co. v. United States, 73 C.

Muse v. United States

21 Cl. Ct. 592 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 19, 1990

. § 8442 (c), due to the presence of some legal error or injustice in the record before the promotion selection boards. See, e.g., Engels v. … information, then the record is not complete, and it is before the Selection Board in a way other than as the statute prescribes____ Id., quoting Weiss v.

Love v. United States

98 F. Supp. 770 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 3, 1951

Croghan v. United States, 116 C. Cls. 577 ; Wittner v. United States, 110 C. Cls. 231 . … Eberlein v. United States, 257 U. S. 82 ; Keirn v. United States, 177 U. S. 290 .

WPC Enterprises, Inc. v. United States

323 F.2d 874 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 11, 1963

Civil Aeronautics Board, 240 F. 2d 867, 874 (C.A.D.C., 1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 941 (1957); Adams v. Witmer, 271 F. 2d 29, 36-37 (C.A. 9, 1958). … See United States v.

Bromley Contracting Co. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,559 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 20, 1986

(1982); Santa Fe Engineers, Inc. v. … In Santa Fe Engineers, Inc. v.

Artisan Electronics Corp. v. United States

499 F.2d 606 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1974

In De Vito v. United States, 188 Ct. … Corp. v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 150 , 462 F. 2d 1150 (1972); H. N. Bailey & Associates v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 166 , 449 F. 2d 376 (1971).

Merando, Inc. v. United States

475 F.2d 601 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 16, 1973

It is undisputed that the Board’s conclusion is not final and binding on this court since it involves contract interpretation which is a question of law. International Telephone and Telegraph v. United States, 197 Ct. … Co., Inc. v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 29 , 33', 449 F. 2d 372, 375 (1971) ; Corn Corp. v. United States, 191 Ct. Cl. 560, 567 , 424 F. 2d 588, 592 (1970) ; Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. United States, 109 Ct.

National Civil Service League v. United States

643 F.2d 768 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 25, 1981

See United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966); United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., 384 U.S. 424 (1966); United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U.S. 709 (1963); Marley v. … Co. v. United States, 168 Ct.Cl. 873, 877 (1964). Therefore, we examine the decision of the Board subjectfto these limitations on our role as a reviewing court.

Modern Engineering Co. v. United States

113 F. Supp. 685 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 13, 1953

This decision by the Board did not, and could not, operate to effect a waiver of plaintiff’s failure to submit its claim on time. As the Supreme Court pointed out in United States v. Garbutt Oil Company, 302 U. … United States v. Andrews, 302 U. S. 517 ; Tucker v. Alexander, 275 U.

Williams v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 1 · United States Court of Claims · May 26, 1983

Kirby v. United States, 201 Ct.Cl. 527, 539 (1973). … Therefore, even if plaintiff were to argue that the Board stopped short of giving full relief, thereby invoking the “half-a-loaf doctrine,” see Homcy v. United States, 210 Ct.Cl. at 338 , 536 F.2d at 364 ; Denton v.

D. Joseph Devito, Receiver for Seaview Electric Company v. The United States

413 F.2d 1147 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1969

However, none of this evidence was presented to the Board of Contract Appeals. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. … In Zoda v.

Briggs & Turivas v. United States

83 Ct. Cl. 664 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 9, 1936

Garfielde v. United States, 93 U. S. 242 ; American Smelting Co. v. United States, 259 U. S. 75; United States v. Purcell Envelope Co., 249 U. S. 313 . All the elements of a contract are present in the memorandum. … The v plaintiff repeatedly offered to execute the formal contract.

International Telephone & Telegraph v. United States

453 F.2d 1283 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 21, 1972

Cf., Dynamics Corporation of America v. United States, 182 Ct. Cl. 62 (1968). … The Board sustained the 'defendant on this point, citing Lowell O. West Lumber Sales v. United States, 270 F. 2d 12 (9th Cir. 1959). We do not think that case is apposite.