Case law

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.

Hoffman v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 406 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 6, 1989

IV This court has jurisdiction to review a decision of a board of correction for military records having pay consequences. Hertzog v. United States, 167 Ct.Cl. 377, 383-84 (1964). … Where reasonable minds might reach differing conclusions, the court will not sit as a “super correction board” and substitute its judgment for that of the correction boards. See Skinner v.

Slick Airways, Inc. v. United States

292 F.2d 515 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1961

In United States v. … In United States v.

McEaddy v. United States

152 Ct. Cl. 311 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 18, 1961

By medical boards located at hospitals having physical evaluation board authority. (1) Return to duty. # % % & ^ 11. … These regulations supersede paragraphs 1, 2, 3a, and d, 4, 5, 6a, and f, 7, sections IV, V, VI, and VII, SR 609-450-1, 7 November 1049; SR 600-450-2, 28 June 1950; SR 600-450-3, 10 October 1950; WCL 33980, 21 December 1950

Chase & Rice, Inc. v. United States

354 F.2d 318 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 17, 1965

, or riot supported by substantial evidence, citing the Wunderlich Act, supra, and United States v. … Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, 10 Ct. Cl. 548 (1874), affirmed United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 11 Ct. Cl. 1 , 91 U.S. 72 (1875).

S. J. Groves & Sons Co. v. United States

661 F.2d 170 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 23, 1981

On March 23, 1979, the decision of the contracting officer was appealed by plaintiff to the Interior Board of Contract Appeals (board). … in court than before the board, we are not *603 persuaded to bypass the board in what otherwise is clearly a case for the board.

Banks Construction Company, Inc. v. The United States

364 F.2d 357 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1966

Bateson-Stolte, Inc. v. United States, 145 Ct.Cl. 387 , 172 F.Supp. 454 (1959); Litchfield Mfg. Co. v. United States, supra; Gardner Displays Co. v. United States, supra; Laburnum Constr. Corp. v. … Compare Barnard-Curtiss Co. v. United States, 301 F.2d 909, 912 , 157 Ct.Cl. 103, 109-110 (1962) ; Rolin v. United States, supra; Arundel Corp. v. United States, supra; MacArthur Bros. Co. v.

Salz v. United States

157 Ct. Cl. 172 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 4, 1962

A repeat stress test in this hospital on 6 November 1954 again showed S-T depression in Leads II and V-4 of approximately .5 mm. which again is a borderline finding. … The recent T wave changes in Leads I, aVL and V-5 and V-6 while possibly representing ischemia in the lateral wall of the left ventricle were not of a character that would suggest an intramural infarction at that time.

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 .

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.

Ferrell v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 562 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 24, 1991

Board (“MEB”) and a Physical Evaluation Board (“PEB”). … Beckham v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 628, 634-35 , 392 F.2d 619, 621-22 (1968); Dayley v. United States, 180 Ct.Cl. 1136, 1143 (1967); Cooper v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 277, 289 (1967); Smith v.

Thomas v. United States

123 Ct. Cl. 507 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 4, 1952

The reconvened Army Retiring Board found, as did the original Army Retiring Board, that plaintiff was permanently incapacitated for active service by reason of such ulcer, and that the cause of such incapacity was an incident … The issues involved in this case are identical with those involved in the case of Ramsey v. United States, No. 50325, this day decided.

Guzman v. Department of the Navy

231 Ct. Cl. 1005 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 17, 1982

Menchavez v. Office of Personnel Management, ante at 924; Valenzuela v. Office of Personnel Management, ante at 907; Castro v. Office of Personnel Management, ante at 867; Cubacub v. … Without oral argument, the final opinion and order of the Merit Systems Protection Board, dated May 31, 1981, is AFFIRMED.

Ness Investment Corp. v. United States

595 F.2d 585 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 21, 1979

Ness Investment Corp. v. United States Department of Agriculture, 512 F. 2d at 712 n. 7. Plaintiffs accepted the Board’s decision on this question as final. … Therefore, the decision of the Board of Forest Appeals is res judicata as to the issues involved, United States v. Utah Construction and Mining Co., 384 U. S. 394, 421-422 (1966); Safir v.

Lockheed Aircraft Corporation v. The United States

375 F.2d 786 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1967

The primary question may be one of law, but it can be decided by the Board because it arises under the contract — i. e., the parties bargained to resolve it administratively. Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. … Pressed Steel Car Company, Inc. v.

Wyoming National Bank of Wilkes-Barre v. United States

292 F.2d 511 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1961

Rose, et al. v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 475 . … A motion was filed at the same time by Attorney Charles V. Linshaw of Philadelphia, as attorney for Bo-Jack, for leave to waive printing. The court allowed that motion. 3.

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.”

Macleod v. United States

45 Ct. Cl. 339 · United States Court of Claims · May 2, 1910

(Haver v. Yaker, 9 Wall., 32 .) As was said by Mr. Justice Brown in Dooley v. United States ( 182 U. … (Taylor's International Law, 467; Carlisle v.

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.

Lawrance Aeronautical Corp. v. United States

130 F. Supp. 603 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1955

Daniel Hamm Drayage Co. v. Willson, 178 F. 2d 633 . The Board denied jurisdiction to consider a termination claim in Proceeding 159. … Victoria Mines, Inc., v. United States, No. 50344, decided November 30, 1954; Rice Barton Corporation v. United States, 115 C. Cls. 575 .