Case law

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.

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.

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.

Jefferson Construction Company v. The United States

392 F.2d 1006 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 19, 1968

Plaintiff argues that the United States v. Spearin, supra, and Laburnum v. … In Saddler v.

Perkitney v. United States

174 Ct. Cl. 79 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 21, 1966

Plaintiff appealed next to tbe Civil Service Commission Board of Appeals, and Review. On February 26,1959, tbe Board of Appeals and Review affirmed tbe decision of the Third Region. … However, in Spector v. United States, 165 Ct.

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.

Torti v. United States

135 Ct. Cl. 214 · United States Court of Claims · May 1, 1956

Holliday v. United States, 114 C. Cls. 702 ; Snauffer v. Stimson, 155 F. 2d 861, 862 (C. A. D. C.) ; Van Horne v. Hines, 122 F. 2d 207, 209 (C. A. D. C.), cert. den. 314 U. S. 689; Barnett v. Hines, 105 F. 2d 96, 99 (C. … S. 573 ; United States v. Mroch, 88 F. 2d 888, 890 (CCA 6) ; Smith v. United States, 83 F. 2d 631, 639 (CCA 8); International Union, etc. v. Bradley, 75 F. Supp. 394, *222 398 (D. C. D. C.); United States 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.

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.

Massachusetts ex rel. Department of Public Welfare v. United States

15 Cl. Ct. 73 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 13, 1988

On February 26, 1982, HHS’s Grant Appeals Board, in Board Decision No. 260, sustained HCFA’s disallowance of the Commonwealth’s claim. … Massachusetts appealed HCFA’s second disallowance to the Board, but on December 15, 1982, the Board issued a summary decision, based on the reasoning of Board Decision No. 260, upholding HCFA’s disal-lowance.

Aviation & Transportation Properties, Inc. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,666 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 23, 1986

The role of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is to hear appeals directly from agency boards of contract appeals and the United States Claims Court. … Santa Fe Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 512 , 677 F.2d 876 (1982); Conoc Construction Corp. v.

Shuey Aircraft, Inc. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,446 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 7, 1983

V 1981). The contracting officer’s adverse decision was appealed to the ASBCA on Nov. 29, 1978, and the Board’s decision was dated Oct. 17, 1980. … Scanwell Laboratories v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859, 874 (D.C.Cir.1970); Baird Corp. v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 662, 666 (1983). . 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (g) (1976); Burroughs Corp. v.

National Presto Industries, Inc.

24 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,222 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1978

"Both sides purport to rely heavily on our decision in Instrument Systems Corp. v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 99 , 546 F.2d 357 (1976) and Marinette Marine Corp. v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 114 , 546 F.2d 365 (1976). … Steamship Co. v. United States, 198 Ct. Cl. 312 , 459 F.2d 1393 (1972), to convert trials into real life reenactments of the fictional Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.

Hubbell v. United States

15 Ct. Cl. 546 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1879

(Comegys v. Vasse, 1. Pet., 193.) … And in United States v.

Philip B. Thompson v. The United States

405 F.2d 1239 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1969

See, e. g., Boland v. United States, 169 Ct.Cl. 145, 148 (1965); Towell v. United States, 150 Ct.Cl. 422, 433 (1960). Findings Of Fact 1. … Correction Board Proceedings 28.

McGiven v. United States

183 Ct. Cl. 920 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 19, 1968

(a) The medical board recommended plaintiff’s appearance before a physical evaluation board. Such an appearance was made on July 29, 1959. … ECG normal; Master’s two step test positive showing S-T depression in lead V-4 in the immediate ECG strip. Impression: 1.

Putnam Tool Co. v. United States

147 F. Supp. 746 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 16, 1957

By a notice dated February 27, 1946', the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board notified the plaintiff that it had adopted the determination made by its subordinate board that the plaintiff had realized excessive profits in … In our decisions in Eversharp, Inc. v. United States, 129 C. Cls. 772 , and 135 C. Cls. 717 , we held that the renegotiation regulation fixing the 6 percent rate of interest was invalid.

Anthony M. Meyerstein, Inc. v. United States

137 F. Supp. 427 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1956

In support of the latter contention plaintiff cites the cases of Montrose Contracting Co., Inc., v. County of West chester, 80 F. 2d 841 ; United States v. Spearin, 248 U. S. 132 ; City of New York v. … Union Paving Company v. The United States, 126 C. Cls. 478, 489 ; The Callahan Construction Co., 47 C. Cls. 177 .

Shafer v. United States

1 Cl. Ct. 437 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 1, 1983

Twenty days before his release from active duty, plaintiff petitioned the Board for the Correction of Naval Records (Board) to remove his Officer Fitness Reports from his file for the periods August 7, 1970, through October … The Board denied his petition on July 9, 1975, stating that insufficient evidence of material error or injustice had been presented.