Case law

Blair v. United States

10 Cl. Ct. 614 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 18, 1986

The Medical Board at the Center referred the plaintiff’s case to the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB). … Broad Avenue Laundry & Tailoring v. United States, 693 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed.Cir.1982); see also Morris Mechanical Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 728 F.2d 497, 498 (Fed.Cir.1984).

Duke v. United States

57 Ct. Cl. 535 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 6, 1922

The plaintiffs were notified of this action of the board. … Louis Ry. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119 U. S. 149, 151 . See also National Bank v. Hall, 101 U. S. 43, 50 .

Good v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 744 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 22, 1991

Indeed, the Board’s decisions acknowledge this point. See, e.g., Smith v. … Ill Plaintiff’s remedy lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Merit Systems Protection Board. United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 , 108 S.Ct. 668 , 98 L.Ed.2d 830 (1988).

John Wanamaker Philadlephia, Inc. v. United States

359 F.2d 437 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 15, 1966

Hackensack Water Co. v. United States, supra; Wright Contracting Co. v. Commissioner, supra; Broida, Stone & Thomas, Inc. v. United States, supra; Commissioner v. O. Liquidating Corp., supra. (A.) … Then plaintiff focuses on the fiscal years 1916-1920 which were before the Board of Tax Appeals in John Wanamaker Philadelphia, *180 Inc. v.

Beasley v. United States

21 Cl. Ct. 236 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 9, 1990

Thus, if the Board had sufficient evidence to reach its conclusion, then it did not act arbitrarily and capriciously. O’Neil v. United States, 6 Cl.Ct. 317, 320 (1984). … United States v. Terrell, 5 M.J. 726 (ACMR 1978); United States v. Seay, 1 M.J. 201 (CMA 1975); United States v. Butner, 15 M.J. 139 (CMA 1983). This rule applies to court martial proceedings.

Ivary

650 F.2d 285 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 8, 1980

Resort to the Correction Board here was a permissive remedy and did not toll the statute of limitations. Ray v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 761 , 766 (1976); Brownfield v. United States, 218 Ct. … Plaintiff argues that the decision of the Appeal Board in 1950 should not be considered final because plaintiff was misled. See Friedman v. United States, supra, 159 Ct. Cl. at 24 , 310 F. 2d at 395-96 .

Ivary v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 663 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 18, 1983

Schuster v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 708, 710 (1983) (Wood, J.), aff’d, 723 F.2d 69 (Fed.Cir.1983); Cemer v. Marathon Oil Co., 583 F.2d 830, 831-32 (6th Cir.1978); Mathis v. … Plaintiff’s resort to the Correction Board is a permissive remedy and does not create a new cause of action. Ray v. United States, 538 F.2d 347 , 209 Ct.Cl. 761 , 766 (1976); Friedman v.

Nolan v. United States

41 F.2d 962 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 2, 1930

Shipping Board for the SS. … In United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610, 631 , 4 L.

Giesler v. United States

230 Ct. Cl. 723 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 23, 1982

Ramsey v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 1042 (1978), cert. denied 439 U.S. 1068 (1979); Mathis v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 145 , 147, 391 F.2d 938, 939 (1968). … Permissive administrative remedies, such as a resort to the Correction Board, do not give rise to a new cause of action, even where the Correction Board bases its decision on a new rationale. Merriott v.

Adams v. United States

65 F. Supp. 86 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 1, 1946

Dunbar v. Dunbar, 190 U. S. 340, 352 ; Wills v. Wills, 168 Ky. 35 ; 181 S. W. 619 ; Graham v. Graham, 140 Tenn. 328 ; 204 S. W. 987 ; McCloskey v. McCloskey, 93 Mo. A. 393; 67 S. W. 669 ; Brown v. … Brown, 132 Ga. 712 , 64 S.

Bishop v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 281 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1992

, the Officer Special Review Board, or the Department of the Army Active Duty Board. … Triax Co. v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 507, 509 (1990) (citing Eyre v. McDonough Power Equip., 755 F.2d 416 , 420 (5th Cir.1985) (construing FRCP 59)); see Yuba Natural Resources, Inc. v.

Hayes Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States

163 Ct. Cl. 265 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 15, 1963

In United States v. … expressed by the Board.

American President Lines, Ltd.

553 F.2d 104 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 5, 1977

Upon request, the Board must afford plaintiff a hearing no later than immediately following the Board’s calculation of subsidy payments due. … See Moore-McCormack Lines v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 644 , 413 F.2d 568 (1969) and Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 482 , 499 F.2d 587 (1974).

Leefer

578 F.2d 1388 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 9, 1978

"Plaintiff appealed his reduction-in-grade administratively to the Appeals Examining Office (AEO) and the Board of Appeals and Review (now the Appeals Review Board — ARB), both of which rendered decisions adverse to *1062 … There is a strong presumption that officials act in good faith, Grover v. United States, 200 Ct.Cl. 337, 344 (1973), and plaintiff has not overcome this presumption.

Elston Co. Ex Rel. United States Brewing Co. v. United States

21 F. Supp. 267 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 14, 1938

In Clarke v. … The defendant suggests that the Board cases just referred to were decided prior to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Clarke v. Haberle Crystal Springs Co., supra, and Renziehausen v. Lucas, supra.

Lima Surgical Associates, Inc. Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Ass'n Plan Trust v. United States

20 Cl. Ct. 674 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 15, 1990

Harding Hospital, Inc. v. United States, 505 F.2d 1068, 1071 (6th Cir.1974) (citation omitted); accord Founding Church of Scientology v. … As stated in Latrobe Steel Co. v.

Istivan v. United States

689 F.2d 1034 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 22, 1982

Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 285, 298 , 594 F.2d 804, 811 (1979); Cooper v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 300, 304 (1973). … We have previously held, in the military retirement area, that the usual deference given to a board’s decision is predicated upon a discussion, in writing, of the reasons for a board’s actions. Craft v.

Pepper v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 666 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 26, 1985

Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 , 81 S.Ct. 534 , 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961); Brundage, 504 F.2d at 1382 ; Erickson v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 163, 165-66 (1983); Cason, 471 F.2d at 1229 . … Deering v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 342, 351 n. 3, 620 F.2d 242 , 246 n. 3 (en banc 1980); Plant v. United States, 650 F.2d 285 , 222 Ct.Cl. 682 (1980); Frommhagen v.

E. Walters & Co. v. United States

576 F.2d 362 · United States Court of Claims · May 17, 1978

The board even suggests that use of the options clause may have been "unlawful,” but finds it unnecessary to decide that question. See, G.L. Christian & Associates v. United States, 160 Ct. … Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc. v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 135 , 475 F.2d 630 (1973). See, for example, DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 979 , 413 F.2d 1147 (1969), and its progeny. *266 See also Northern Helex Co. v.

Schwartz v. United States

181 F. Supp. 408 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 2, 1960

After plaintiff’s suspension on March 12, 1954, he was given a 'hearing before the Security Hearing Board on July 8, 1954. The Board rendered its adverse decision on August 31, 1954. … His time was undoubtedly taken up in the effort to secure favorable action, by the Board.