Case law

Abbott v. United States

151 F. Supp. 929 · United States Court of Claims · May 8, 1957

We held in Poggas v. United States, 93 F.Supp. 1009 , 118 Ct. … In 1948 he appointed a Special Board to consider pilot pay rates, and took the action which the Board recommended.

Slattery

578 F.2d 1388 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 6, 1978

Murphy v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 352, 363-64 (1976); Christie v. United States, 207 Ct. … Flute v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 34, 41 , 535 F.2d 624, 628 (1976).

Tasty Baking Co. v. United States

38 F. Supp. 844 · United States Court of Claims · May 5, 1941

The cases of Armour & Co. v. Harrison, 19 A. F. T. R. 1347 (N. D. Ill.) appeal dismissed 95 Fed. (2d) 993, and Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 22 Fed. (Sup.) 141, (D. C. … Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf, 240 U. S. 251 ; United States v. Carver, 260 U. S. 482 ; Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Powe, 283 U. S. 401 ; Stamey v.

Suter v. United States

153 F. Supp. 367 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1957

We have many times held that his cause of action first accrued when he was released from active duty, and resort to the correction board would not toll the statute of limitations. Levadi v. … United States, Ct.Cl., 146 F.Supp. 455 ; Barker v. United States, 140 F.Supp. 415 , 135 Ct.Cl. 42 ; Rosnick v. United States, 129 F.Supp. 958 , 132 F.Supp. 478 , 132 Ct.Cl. 1 ; MacFarlane v. United States, 140 F.

Voge v. United States

11 Cl. Ct. 510 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 16, 1987

In Hary v. … In Savio v.

Hubeny Bros., Inc. v. United States

161 Ct. Cl. 838 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1963

The Department of the Army wanted the outstanding balance under the V-loan paid promptly from the proceeds due plaintiff 'under the Board’s decision. … of the V-loan by the end of the month.

DWS, Inc. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,739 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 24, 1989

Neal & Co., Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 282, 287 (1987); see also, Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Plasser Am. Corp., 747 F.2d 1567 , 1575-76 (Fed.Cir.1984). … Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 , 99 S.Ct. 970, 973 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979); see also, International Order of Jobs Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co., 727 F.2d 1087, 1090 (Fed.Cir.1984).

Field Enterprises, Inc. v. The United States

348 F.2d 485 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1965

Brown v. … The taxpayer in Brown v. Helvering, supra, was a general agent for fire insurance companies. Eor each policy written, Brown received an “overriding commission.”

Inforex, Inc.

24 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,335 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 27, 1978

Cf. order in Purvis v. United States, ante at 398. … "The Board further erred as a matter of law in holding that the persons who ordered the alleged constructive changes lacked authority to do so. It fails to note such cases as Gresham & Co. v. United States, 200 Ct.

Leka v. United States

69 Ct. Cl. 79 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 10, 1930

Under the regulations the money received was deposited to the credit of the board of trustees. (See Finding IX.) The checks and drafts for payment were drawn against this account of the board of trustees. … Vaughan v. Northup, supra. Compare Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 280 U. S. 83 .

J. W. Bateson Co. v. United States

450 F.2d 896 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 12, 1971

Co. v. United States, 161 Ct. … Quoted from the board decision mentioned In note 1 supra.

Scott McCormac and May McCormac v. The United States

424 F.2d 607 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 17, 1970

Plaintiffs rely principally upon the landmark case of Burnet v. … See, e. g., Burnet v. Logan, supra; Robinette v. Helvering, 318 U.S. 184 , 63 *620 S.Ct. 540, 87 L.Ed. 700 (1943); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.

National Presto Industries, Inc.

219 Ct. Cl. 626 · United States Court of Claims · May 11, 1979

V 1975), a person who wishes to seek a redetermination in this court of a Renegotiation Board determination of excessive profits has a choice of paying the amount awarded or filing a bond with this court. … App. § 1218) provides that the suit will stay the order of the Renegotiation Board only if a bond is filed.

Albert & J. M. Anderson Manufacturing Co. v. United States

145 F. Supp. 195 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 2, 1956

The defendant contends that when the contractor appeals from the determination of the Secretary of War or the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board adjustments made by the Secretary of War or the Board are tentative and not … National Builders, Inc. v. Commissioner, 12 T. C. 852, 860 .

Penn Chemical Co. v. United States

63 Ct. Cl. 15 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 14, 1927

American Smelting and Refining Co. v. United States, 259 U. S. 75 ; Federal Sugar Refining Co. v. United States, 60 C. Cls. 184 ; Consolidation Coal Co. v. United States, 60 C. Cls. 608, 625 ; Pocahontas Fuel Co. v. … Cls. 231 ; Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. United States, 61 C. Cls. 693 ; Alcock & Co. v. United States, *27 61 C. Cls. 312 ; and Daniel W. Herrman v. United States, 57 C. Cls. 96, 103 .

Pantex Pressing MacH., Inc. v. United States

71 F. Supp. 859 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 2, 1947

Seaboard Air Line Railway v. United States, 256 U.S. 655 , 41 S.Ct. 611 , 65 L.Ed. 1149 . … We have heretofore held in Charles Kaiser et al. v. United States, 69 F.Supp. 588 , 108 CL Cl.-, Adler Metal Products Corp. v. United States, 71 F. Supp. 239 , 108 Ct. Cl.-, and Seven-Up Bottling Co. v.

Blue Cross Ass'n v. United States

568 F.2d 1339 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 25, 1978

The Board’s decision withstands Wunderlich Act review and is final and conclusive. In summary, we have held that the Board did not err in the proceedings involved here. … Plaintiffs have argued persuasively that despite the stipulations and concessions made in this case their costs are allocable under the "benefit” test which this court applied in Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v.

McShain v. United States

65 F. Supp. 589 · United States Court of Claims · May 6, 1946

Ripley v. United States, 223 U.S. 695, 701, 702, 750 , 32 S.Ct. 352 , 56 L.Ed. 614 ; Morgan et al. v. … Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. v. United States, 76 Ct.Cl. 154, 190, 191 ; Phoenix Bridge Co. v. United States, 85 Ct.Cl. 603, 626 ; Hirsch v. United States, supra.

Wilson v. United States

24 Cl. Ct. 842 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 29, 1992

See Gilligan v. … See Hary v.

Flecha v. United States

79 Ct. Cl. 180 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 5, 1934

The report of the findings of the board was duly submitted to the Secretary of War, who entered an order approving the same in every respect. … It would hardly seem necessary to cite authorities supporting this conclusion, but see Acker v. United States, 46 C.Cls. 63, 68, and Gillespie Co. v. United States, 60 C.Cls. 923. The decision in Curran v.