Case law

Eslin v. District of Columbia

22 Ct. Cl. 395 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 31, 1887

The haul on the whole five blocks was reckoned at Board rates. … (United States v. Jones, 8 Pet., 387 .) The counter-claim must be dismissed.

MacEntee

546 F.2d 431 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 21, 1976

On May 3,1976 Trial Judge Joseph V. … and that -the Board decision must be sustained.

Hoen v. United States

157 Ct. Cl. 235 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 4, 1962

Plaintiff advised the Board that he did not desire to appear before the Board or have witnesses present. … Moreover, for the reasons stated in this court’s opinion in Lipp v. United States, also decided this day, ante, p. 197, this claim is barred by the statute of -limitations.

H.L.C. & Associates Construction Company, Inc. v. The United States

367 F.2d 586 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 10, 1966

In support of its challenge of the board’s conclusion, plaintiff relies upon additional facts, drawn from the record underlying the board’s decision. … [Citing] : Moyer Bros. v. United States, 156 Ct.Cl. 120 (1962) ; Oliver-Finnie Co. v. United States, 150 Ct.Cl. 189, 201 , 279 F.2d 498, 506 (1960); Anderson v. United States, 143 Ct.Cl. 729 (1958); Carman v.

Opalack v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,500 · United States Court of Claims · May 15, 1984

For a very similar case, see Tester Corp. v. … In certain instances, facts which are fully supported in the record but not mentioned in the Board’s (ALJ’s) opinions have been included for clarification. See Sherwin v.

Goldstein v. United States

130 F. Supp. 330 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1955

Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 , 73 S.Ct. 534 , 97 L.Ed. 842 . … We find no reason to alter the Board's decision. See Gordon v. United States, 121 F.Supp. 625 , 129 Ct.Cl. 270 .

Garner v. United States

230 Ct. Cl. 941 · United States Court of Claims · May 4, 1982

United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (1969); Vincin v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 762 , 468 F.2d 930 (1972). … This court has often ruled that the decision of a correction board to grant a hearing is discretionary-however, the denial may not be arbitrary or capricious or based on erroneous facts. See, e.g., Flute v.

Alexander v. United States

149 Ct. Cl. 445 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1960

On January 29, eleven days after the Board’s decision, the Navy formally requested the Civil Service Commission to reconsider the Board’s decision. … Parks v. United States, 137 Ct. Cl. 297; Adler v. United States, 129 Ct. Cl. 150 ; Schweizer v. United States, 128 Ct. Cl. 456 .

Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. The United States

348 F.2d 475 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1965

before the Board. … Defendant cites Sutton v. United States, 256 U.S. 575 , 41 S.Ct. 513 , 65 L.Ed. 1099 (1921); Curtis v. United States, 2 Ct.Cl. 144 (1866), and Shipman v.

Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation, a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Armour and Company, and Armour and Company v. The United States

434 F.2d 1371 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 11, 1970

Bolander Co. v. United States, 186 Ct.Cl. 398 , 409 n. 11 (1968); Maxwell Dynamometer Co. v. United States, 386 F.2d 855, 870 , 181 Ct.Cl. 607, 631 , (1967); and Loral Electronics Corp. v. … General Warehouse Two, Inc. v. United States, 389 F.2d 1016 , 181 Ct.Cl. 180 (1967); Micrecord Corp. v. United States, 361 F.2d 1000 , 176 Ct.Cl. 46 (1966); Houston Ready-Cut House Co. v.

General Dynamics Corporation v. The United States

410 F.2d 404 · United States Court of Claims · May 16, 1969

If such finding is supported by substantial evidence, we are bound by the decision of the Board. The question of reasonableness is a question of fact. Acme Process Equipment Co. v. … Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 184, 195 (1966).

The George Hyman Construction Company v. The United States

366 F.2d 1015 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 14, 1966

See 41 U.S.C. §§ 321 , 322; Jack Stone Co. v. United States, 344 F.2d 370 , 170 Ct.Cl. 281 (1965). … Plaintiff relies upon this court’s decision in Rust Eng’r Co. v.

Ogden

578 F.2d 1390 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 27, 1978

Board, and whether there was substantial evidence to support the administrative board’s decision. … Peters v. United States, 187 Ct. Cl. 63 , 408 F. 2d 719 (1969); Powers v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 626 (1965); Harrington v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 1110 (1966); Greenway v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 72 (1963).

Winston Bros. & Green Construction Co. v. United States

458 F.2d 49 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1972

The Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals, (Eng. … Corp. v. United States, 163 Ct.

Gulf + Western Precision Engineering Co. v. United States

543 F.2d 125 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 20, 1976

Co. v. United States, 193 Ct. Cl. 168 , 432 F. 2d 1377 (1970); L. W. Foster Sportswear Co. v. United States, 186 Ct. … In Austin Co. v. United States, 161 Ct.

Miller v. United States

107 F. Supp. 555 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 7, 1952

Some time after the meeting of the Board, Mr. … This offer and acceptance gave rise to a binding contract, Nisley Co. v. Rudolph & Bauer, 64 Fed. *456 2d 571; Restatement Of Contraéis, §§ 19 and 22.

Shapiro v. United States

69 F. Supp. 205 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 6, 1947

United States v. Brown, 206 U.S. 240 , 27 S.Ct. 620 , 51 L.Ed. 1046 . … See also Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U.S. 329 , 61 S.Ct. 572 , 85 L.Ed. 859 ; McCleary v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 124 F.2d 445 ; Levine v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 127 F.2d 982 .

Metadure Corp. v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,755 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 15, 1984

See Von Poppenheim v. … (CCH) ¶ 10,599, the “mitigating circumstances” that militated against dismissal did not consist of willful failure to comply with the board’s orders, but ignorance of the appeals process. Finally, in Kropp v.

Cosmopolitan Manufacturing Co. v. The United States. Arlene Coats, a Partnership Consisting of Sidney Berkenfeld and Benjamin Prepon v. The United States

297 F.2d 546 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 4, 1962

Empire Institute of Tailoring, Inc. v. United States, 161 F. Supp. 409 , 142 Ct.Cl. 165 ; Levine v. United States, 137 F.Supp. 955 , 133 Ct. Cl. 774 ; Sese v. United States, 113 F. Supp. 658 , 125 Ct.Cl. 526 ; Gray v. … . * * *" 14 In Soriano 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.