Case law

Skaradowski v. United States

471 F.2d 627 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 18, 1973

In this case the court stresses once again (see Duhon v. United States, 198 Ct. … See, for example, Diamond v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 1103, 1110 (1966). Cf. Remaley v. United States, 134 Ct. Cl. 874 , 139 F.

Holland v. United States

83 Ct. Cl. 376 · United States Court of Claims · May 4, 1936

In Terry v. United States, No. 28148, decided March 30, 1908 ( 81 C. … Rogers v. United States, 59 C. Cls. 464 .

Kamen Soap Products Co. v. United States

110 F. Supp. 430 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 3, 1953

In Brown v. … Brown v. United States, 276 U.S. 134 , 48 S.Ct. 288 , supra. Accordingly, as to Items 6 and 7, defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena served on the Secretary of the Army is denied.

Hannon v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 89 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 28, 1983

which convened October 7, 1974 (the 1975 board) and September 22, 1975, (the 1976 board). … The propriety vel non of the 1975 board’s composition would appear to be beyond dispute, Stewart v.

Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. United States

178 Ct. Cl. 883 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 17, 1967

V ^ »j» General Conditions of the Specifications GC-19. … Decker, Inc. v. United States, 117 Ct. Cl. 703, 714 , 93 F. Supp. 631, 633 (1950). See also B. H. Deacon Co. v. United States, 189 F. Supp. 146, 149 (E.D. Pa., 1960); California Vegetable Growers v.

Foundation Co. v. United States

15 F. Supp. 229 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 1, 1936

Tyler, 9 B.T.A. 255 ; James Couzens v. Commissioner, 11 B.T.A. 1040 ; Veeder v. Commissioner, 10 B.T.A. 884 ; Id. (C.C.A.) 36 F.(2d) 342 ; and Manz Corporation v. United States, 54 F.(2d) 177 , 74 Ct.Cl. 5, 13 . … Connor et al., Trustees, v. United States, 13 F.Supp. 455 , 82 Ct.Cl. —.

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.

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.

Peerless Insulated Wire & Cable Co. v. United States

60 Ct. Cl. 409 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 2, 1925

This pledge was made in accordance with the suggestion of the War Industries Board. … There was no authority given by the Secretary of yV&v or the President to any officer or agent to exact such a pledge, nor is it claimed that there was; and this being the case the plaintiff does not bring itself under the

Young Associates, Inc. v. United States

471 F.2d 618 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 18, 1973

Bateson Co. v. United States, 196 Ct. … (Plaintiff did not present this issue to the board.)

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 .

Friedman

214 Ct. Cl. 804 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 21, 1977

Barger v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 207, 214 (1965).’ Carlson v. United States, ante, at 774. … Barger v. United States, supra.

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.

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.

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.

Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. The United States

427 F.2d 1194 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 20, 1970

In Sweatt v. … In Brown v.

O'Brien Gear & Machine Co. v. United States

591 F.2d 666 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1979

V 1975). The court has provided in Rule 26 that the amount of the bond shall be 100 percent of the Board decision less applicable tax credits. … . v.

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.

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 .