Case law

Springfield Street Railway Co. v. United States

577 F.2d 700 · United States Court of Claims · May 17, 1978

In Edwards v. … Brown Shoe Co. v. Commissioner, 339 U.S. 583 (1950).

Butler Lumber Co. v. United States

73 Ct. Cl. 270 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 7, 1931

United States v. Mille Lac Band of Indians, 229 U. S. 498 ; Stanton & Jones v. United States, 68 C. Cls. 379 . … In Carroll v. District of Columbia, 22 C.

Towne Realty, Inc. v. United States

30 Cont. Cas. Fed. 70,466 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 29, 1982

Sherwin v. United States, 193 Ct.Cl. 962, 979, 987-91 , 436 F.2d 992, 1002, 1006-08 (1971). That is the situation here. … paragraph 15 intended more than the board thought.

Claude E. Atkins Enterprises, Inc. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,582 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 28, 1988

White Plains Iron Works, Inc. v. … Malone v.

Vaughn v. United States

158 F. Supp. 716 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 15, 1958

The board recommended that plaintiff be restored retroactively to the position from which he was removed October 8, 1954. … Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82 , 42 S.Ct. 12 , 66 L.Ed. 140 ; Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290 , 20 S.Ct. 574 , 44 L.Ed. 774 ; Jordan v. United States, Ct.Cl., 158 F. Supp. 715 .

Airmotive Engineering Corp. v. United States

535 F.2d 8 · United States Court of Claims · May 12, 1976

Subsequently, the Renegotiation Board (the Board) concluded that the YE awards constituted renegotiable “receipts and accruals” subject to the Act. … Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947). Plainly, the authority to develop Renegotiation policy and interpret the Act, resides in the Renegotiation Board and the courts, not in the Department of Defense.

New York Shipbuilding Co. v. United States

65 Ct. Cl. 457 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1928

On February 14,1918, the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board, a duly established board with authority to adjust disputes which might arise concerning wages, hours, and working conditions of labor engaged in naval construction … Bliss Company v. United, States, decided December 12, 1927. Claims were submitted to the Navy Department, but no action on same was taken.

Holmes v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 521 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 7, 1983

(MSPB) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7701 and from the adverse decision of the Board to the Court of Appeals, *523 Holmes v. … Plaintiff cites Chambers v. United States, 196 Ct.Cl. 186 , 451 F.2d 1045 (1971) and Daub v.

Upshaw v. United States

17 Cl. Ct. 732 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 17, 1989

In April 1985, the Correction Board issued its final decision. … They could be so interpreted only if the Board’s correction of plaintiff’s records entitled him to further promotions as a matter of law. Voge v.

Bostwick-Batterson Co. v. United States

151 Ct. Cl. 560 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1960

Torres v. United States, 126 Ct.’ Cl. 76, 79. … Corp. v. United States, 150 Ct.

Allied Materials & Equipment Co. v. United States

569 F.2d 562 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 25, 1978

Marden Corp. v. United States, supra, 194 Ct. Cl. at 808, 442 F.2d at 369 ; Air-A-Plane Corp. v. United States, supra, 187 Ct. Cl. at 275-76, 408 F.2d at 1033 ; Keco Industries, Inc. v. United States, 176 Ct. … See Carchia v. United States, 202 Ct. Cl. 723, 729 , 485 F.2d 622, 625 (1973); General Builders Supply Co. v. United States, 187 Ct. Cl. 477, 485-86 , 409 F.2d 246, 251 (1969); J.D. Hedin Construction Co. v.

Davis v. United States

17 Ct. Cl. 201 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1881

Nott, J., delivered the opinion of the court: It appears by the findings of fact in this case (1) that a board of survey having found adversely to the claimants, they requested that the adjudication of the board be reopened … Thus in Pearson v.

Wyckoff v. United States

34 Ct. Cl. 288 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 20, 1899

(United States v. Symonds, 120 U. S. B., 46; United States v. Bishop, id., 51; United States v. Strong, 125 U. S. B., 656; United States v. Barnette, 165 U. S. B., 174, affirming this court, 21 C. Cls. … His quarters were on board, and he was in the uniform of a commander when on duty.

United States Steel Corporation v. The United States

367 F.2d 399 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 14, 1966

Co. v. … Under United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U.S. 709 , 83 S.Ct. 1409 , 10 L.Ed.2d 652 (1963), and United States v.

Central Eureka Mining Co. v. United States

146 F. Supp. 476 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1956

In support of its motion for a rehearing in the above cases, the Government says that the court erred in holding that the issuance of War Production Board Limitation Order L-208 amounted to an exercise of the Government’s … On that point, in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Hatahley v.

Menchavez v. Office of Personnel Management

231 Ct. Cl. 924 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 27, 1982

Petitioner’s appeal was considered by the Merit Systems Protection Board, San Francisco Field Office. By an opinion on November 1, 1980, No. SF08318010069, the opm decision was affirmed. … Valenzuela v. United States, ante at 907; Castro v. Office of Personnel Management, ante at 867; Cubacub v.

York Industries, Inc. v. United States

30 Cont. Cas. Fed. 70,242 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 20, 1982

Almost a year later, the plaintiff appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("Board”), seeking adjustments in the contract price. … Skelly & Loy v. United States, ante at 370; Troup Bros. v. United States, ante at 707; W.H. Moseley Co. v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 405 , 677 F.2d 850 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 836 (1982); Paul E. Lehman, Inc. v.

Fletcher

578 F.2d 1391 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 22, 1978

However, discharge from active duty without review by a board (or a request for review) is not sufficient to initiate the running of the statute of limitations. Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct. … Once a board renders a final decision, the statute of limitations commences to run and it is not tolled by further requests for review or reconsideration by a board. Friedman v. United States, supra.

B. & S. Lenox Trade School, Inc. v. United States

145 Ct. Cl. 723 · United States Court of Claims · May 6, 1959

Field School of Upholstery and Allied Trades v. United States, decided March 5, 1958, 141 C. Cls. 807 ; Metropolitan Training Center v. Gray, 188 F. 2d 28 ; Feener v. United States, supra; Roberts v. … The following is from decision of the Veterans’ Education Appeals Board in the case of Pierce Technical Schools v.

Anderson v. United States

15 F. Supp. 225 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 1, 1936

Anderson et al. v. United States (Ct.Cl.) 15 F.Supp. 216 , No. 42472, decided this date. The statutory deficiency notice issued prior to assessment was mailed to the executor, and the estate of Frank E. … Anderson, as the taxpayer, was afforded an opportunity through the executor to be heard before the Commissioner in respect of the deficiency for 1920 and to appeal to the United States Board of Tax Appeals.