Case law

Oliver-Finnie Company v. United States

279 F.2d 498 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 8, 1960

Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Co., 282 U.S. 555 , 51 S.Ct. 248 , 75 L.Ed. 544 ; Reiss & Weinsier, Inc. v. United States, 116 F.Supp. 562 , 126 Ct.Cl. 713, 721 ; Needles, for Use and Benefit of v. … McGraw & Company v.

Cole v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 1018 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 24, 1992

Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 853 , 107 S.Ct. 188 , 93 L.Ed.2d 121 (1986); Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed. Cir.1983); Sanders v. … Co. v.

Kings Electronics Co., Inc. v. The United States

341 F.2d 632 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 19, 1965

Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. United States, 109 Ct.Cl. 390, 418 (1947).” In Anderson Construction Co. v. … Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. United States, supr’a.

Oahu Sugar Company, Limited v. The United States

300 F.2d 773 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1962

Co. v. … See Lazarus v. United States, supra.

Scott v. United States

107 F. Supp. 846 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 7, 1952

The Retiring Board must have had a copy of this order. … The plaintiff relies upon the decision of the court in Whelpley v. United States, 119 C. Cls. 56 , but that case is clearly distinguishable on the facts.

Rose v. United States

124 F. Supp. 419 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1954

Mao-Laren Sportswear Go. v. United, States, 121C. Cls. 396. … On January 29, 1946, dismissing appeals timely filed by plaintiff to the ruling of *745 tbe contracting officer, the War Department Board of Contract Appeals held that, while the contracting officer had failed to make findings

R-D Mounts, Inc. v. United States

30 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,059 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 20, 1983

Fisher v. United States, supra. … Japanese War Notes Claimants Ass’n v.

Jones Brothers Bakery, Inc. v. The United States

411 F.2d 1282 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1969

Chappell constituted the plaintiff’s board of directors. … Jones on August 8, 1953, the plaintiff’s board of directors has consisted of Paul C. Jones as chairman of the board and his sisters, Miss Ora E. Jones and Mrs. Gladys J. Chappell, as members of the board.

Anderson v. United States

490 F.2d 921 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 23, 1974

As the Court said in Walling v. … They argue that a trial judge should take evidence on the issue of whether or not Extra Board employees are engaged to wait. Cited as authority are Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), and Armour & Co. v.

Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corporation v. The United States

360 F.2d 634 · United States Court of Claims · May 13, 1966

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, acting for the head of the Department, also denied plaintiff’s claim. … United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 , 39 S.Ct. 59 , 63 L.Ed. 166 (1918); Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States, 312 F.2d 774 , 160 Ct.Cl. 437 (1963); R. M. Hollingshead Corp. v.

United Pacific Insurance v. United States

497 F.2d 1402 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 19, 1974

Corp. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 1025 , 369 F. 2d 992 (1966); Southern Constr. Co. v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 1339 , 364 F. 2d 439 (1966); Hol-Gar Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 169 Ct. … Co. v. United States, 91 Ct. Cl. 538 (1940); Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Marmaduke Corbyn Agency, 187 F. 2d 553 (10th Cir. 1951).

John M. Brant Co. v. United States

40 F.2d 126 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1930

Tennessee v. Whit-worth, 117 U. S. 129, 137 , 6 S. Ct. 645 , 29 L. Ed. 830 ; Hellmich v. Heilman, 276 U. S. 233 , 48 S. Ct. 244 , 72 L. Ed. 544 , 56 A. L. R. 379. … In this case the Board of Tax Appeals said: “The petitioner, however, has chosen to take advantage of the postponement of the payment of income taxes until the installment payments upon its sales have been actually collected

Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. United States

179 Ct. Cl. 368 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1967

Against this background we turn to the facts as they appear in the record before the Board. 1 See e.g., Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. … Co. v. McGrew, 188 U.S. 291, 312 (1903); Arkansas v . Kansas & Texas Coal Co., 183 U.S. 185, 190 (1901); Mountain View Mining & Milling Co. v. McFadden, 180 U.S. 533, 534 (1901).

Hanger v. United States

23 Ct. Cl. 293 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 23, 1888

authority to transact all business and to perform all duties required by law to be performed by such board, and no proceeding of any board of tax commissioners shall be void or invalid in consequence of the absence of any … In the case of Schench v. Peay (1 Woolworth’s Rep., 175), tried in United States circuit court, the effect of this act upon prior transactions came up for consideration.

Beaty v. United States

58 Ct. Cl. 25 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 2, 1923

(See findings of the board, set out in Finding I.) … United States v. Corson, 114 U. S. 619 ; Mimmack v. United States, 97 U. S. 426 . It follows that the Secretary of the Navy could not by a departmental letter do what the President himself could not.

The Brezina Construction Company, Inc. v. The United States

449 F.2d 372 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1971

See, e. g., Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. United States, 427 F.2d 1181, 1185 , 192 Ct.Cl. 410, 418 (1970); WPC Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 323 F.2d 874, 876-877 , 163 Ct.Cl. 1, 6 (1963). … Co. v. United States, 314 F.2d 501 , 504, 161 Ct.Cl. 1, 7 (1963). See J. A. Jones Constr. Co. v. United States, 395 F.2d 783, 789-790 , 184 Ct.Cl. 1, 12-13 (1968).

Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. United States

153 Ct. Cl. 465 · United States Court of Claims · May 3, 1961

If there was substantial evidence to support it, it was final under the disputes clause of the contract, which is Article V-A thereof. … Although there was some evidence from which the Board might have concluded that the collapse of the refractory was due to inherent defects in the material rather than to fair wear and tear, the decision of the Board, when

Gothwaite v. United States

102 Ct. Cl. 400 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 2, 1944

The War Production Board is an agency created by the President and engaged in carrying out the powers conferred upon him by Congress in the Second War Powers Act of March 27, 1942 ( 56 Stat. 176 , 178). … We have so held from the creation of this court; Deming v. United States, 1 C. Cls. 190 ; Jones v. United States, 1 C. Cls. 383 ; Wilson v. United States, 11 C. Cls. 513 ; Horowitz v. United States, 58 C. Cls. 189 .

John A. Johnson Contracting Corp. v. United States

132 F. Supp. 698 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1955

The interpretation of the contract, which was the key to the Board’s decision, was not a question of fact on which the Board’s decision was final, under the contract. McWilliams Dredging Company v. United States, 118 U. … board or of a division shall be deemed to be the decision of the board or of a division, as the case may be.

Piggly Wiggly Corporation v. United States

81 F. Supp. 819 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 3, 1949

In Clemmer Construction Company, Inc. v. … As pointed out by defendant, United States v. Barlow, 184 U.S. 123 , 22 S.Ct. 468 , 46 L.Ed. 463 ; Clark v. United States, 6 Wall. 543 , 73 U.S. 543 , 18 L.Ed. 916 , and George A. Fuller v.