Case law

Gargaro v. United States

73 F. Supp. 973 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1947

On March 3, 1945, the Board determined, as expressed in an agreement between the Board and the company dated chat day, that the company should refund to the Board $240,000 of the amount realized by it under its contracts … The plaintiff’s situation seems to us to be like that of the plaintiff in Greenwald v. United States, 57 F.Supp. 569 , 102 Ct.C1. 272.

William T. Colman v. United States

292 F.2d 283 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1961

The Correction Board’s recommendations were approved June 7, 1956 by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force. … In Roberts v.

Christian v. United States

151 Ct. Cl. 609 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1960

However, he appeared before the Appeal Board in October 1953 and the Board, on the basis of his Navy medical record and other evidence gave him a 30-percent physical disability rating, no part of which was for pernicious … That action is a class suit entitled Frank Alois Brandenstein, et al. v. United States, No. 98-59.

Gifford v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 8 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 18, 1991

In Hanratty v. … These include Alberico v. United States, 783 F.2d 1024 (Fed.Cir.1986), and Sims v.

Crippen & Graen Corp. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,726 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 26, 1989

Industrial Coatings, Inc. v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 161, 164 (1986); Gunn-Williams v. United States, 6 Cl.Ct. 820, 824 (1984). In Malone v. … .); Russell Corp. v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 760, 761-62 (1988) (Merow, J.); Claude E. Atkins Enterprises, Inc. v.

Winder v. United States

652 F.2d 71 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 24, 1981

A medical board and, later, the Central Physical Evaluation Board concurred in these findings, and the plaintiff was discharged. … See United States, v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, 869 (1977); Bell v. United States, 366 U.S. 393, 401-02 (1961); Jackson v. United States, 216 Ct. Cl. 25, 43-44 , 573 F.2d 1189, 1198 (1978).

Diggs

578 F.2d 1388 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 27, 1978

Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93 (1953); Wesolowski v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 682 (1966). … AR 635-40, para. 4-25 (1970); Finn v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 353 , 548 F.2d 340 (1977); Storey v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 174 , 531 F.2d 985 (1976); Wood v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 737 (1966); Johnson v.

Mathis

521 F.2d 1406 · United States Court of Claims · May 30, 1975

These three requests were all denied by the Board. … Plaintiff’s applications to the Correction Board were permissive in nature and do not toll the pertinent statute of limitations. See Kirby v. United States, supra, at 531; Mathis v. United States, supra, 183 Ct.

Howard v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,947 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 26, 1990

The claim plaintiff placed before the Board clearly was a bid protest over which the NASA Board of Contract Appeals has no jurisdiction. See Coastal Corp. v. … Carruth v.

Petrofsky v. United States

488 F.2d 1394 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 19, 1973

Plis request for an additional refund was denied by the contracting officer and a timely appeal was filed with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (hereinafter ASBCA or Board). … Bishop Eng'r Co. v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 411, 416 (1967); Jamsar, Inc. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 819 , 442 F. 2d 930 (1971).

Parthemore v. United States

1 Cl. Ct. 199 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 13, 1982

At the outset, it is important to note that numerous court decisions (e.g., Snell v. United States, 168 Ct.Cl. 219, 227 (1964); Stephens v. … United States, 174 Ct.Cl. 365, 371-74 , 358 F.2d 951, 954-55 (1966); Beck- *202 ham v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 628, 635-36 , 392 F.2d 619, 622 (1968); Finn v.

Zoesch

650 F.2d 291 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 19, 1980

Co. v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 217 (1964). 3 See also Cooper v. United States, 203 Ct.Cl. 300, 305 (1973). … Recourse to the Corrections Board was purely permissive in this case. As such, the running of the statute of limitations was not tolled. Bruno v. United States, 214 Ct.Cl. 383 , 556 F.2d 1104 (1977).

Bauer v. United States

543 F.2d 142 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 20, 1976

In White v. … In Bloom v.

Chicago School of Automotive Trades, Inc. v. United States

167 Ct. Cl. 106 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 17, 1964

Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co., 190 U.S. 540 (1903), with Krauss v. Greenbarg, 137 F. 2d 569 (C.A. 3, 1943) and Restatement, Contracts § 330. … Ralph Feffer & Sons v. United States, 166 Ct. Cl. 506, 516 (1964).

Spicer v. United States

83 F. Supp. 345 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 4, 1949

Board. … In Howard Industries, Inc. v.

Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. United States

549 F.2d 767 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 23, 1977

Co. v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 551, 561 , 492 F.2d 835, 841 (1974). … See, e.g., United States v. Systron-Donner Corp., 486 F.2d 249 (9th Cir. 1973).

Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority v. United States

135 F. Supp. 532 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 8, 1955

United States v. Southern Gulf Lumber Co., 106 F. Supp. 815 (S. D. Ala.). … One member of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dissented from the Board’s decision on the ground that “* * * the claim Is for damages for breach of an Implied obligation on the part of the Government to maintain

Tountasakis v. United States

29 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,326 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 12, 1982

We uphold the decision of the Board. The terms of a contract must be read consistently, giving full effect to all of them. General Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 229 Ct. … Eriez Magnetics Corp. v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 673, 679 (1976) (Cong, ref.); Alabama Shirt & Trouser Co. v. United States, 121 Ct. Cl. 313, 331 (1952).

Malnak

27 Cont. Cas. Fed. 80,385 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 25, 1980

After a series of reviews these disputes resulted in the filing of two separate appeals with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA or board) in 1972. … Thirdly, regarding their constitutional claims, the employees have failed to make the requisite showing under Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) and Perry v.

Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. United States

52 F.2d 1040 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 20, 1931

This question was before the United States Board of Tax Appeals in Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Co. et al., 22 B. T. … We agree with the reasoning of the board and the conclusion reached in the above-mentioned case. The plaintiff relies upon the case of Edwards v. Cuba Railroad Co., 268 U. S. 628 , 45 S. Ct. 614 , 69 L.