Case law

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.

Armand v. United States

136 Ct. Cl. 339 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1956

Compare Simon v. United States, 113 C. Cls. 182, 199 . … For the background of this Act see the discussion in Simon v. United States, 113 C. Cls. 182, 198 . Recovery in this court under that Act has been granted. Green v. United States, 124 C. Cls. 186 ; O’Brien v.

Riley

207 Ct. Cl. 1027 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 15, 1975

Upon consideration thereof, together with defendant’s response in opposition thereto, without oral argument, in accordance with the order entered in the case of Sanders v. United States, Ct. Cl. … “After completion of the Board’s proceedings, the record thereof will be presented in normal course for action by the Secretary of the Air Force.

Skopic v. United States

178 Ct. Cl. 202 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1967

Stone v. United States, 160 Ct. Cl. 128 (1963); Ferguson v. United States, 166 Ct. Cl. 310 (1964). … THe Friedman case and Lipp v. United States, 157 Ct.

Brown

652 F.2d 69 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 6, 1981

The recommendation was forwarded to the NSA GG-13 Promotion Review Board (Board). … Urbana v. U.S., 192 Ct.Cl. 875 , 428 F.2d 1280 (1970).

Dunnington v. United States

30 F. Supp. 236 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 4, 1939

Within sixty days thereafter plaintiff filed a petition with the Board of Tax Appeals and on November 5, 1927, filed with the Board a motion to dismiss its appeal on the ground that it did not desire further to prosecute … See Lehigh Portland Cement Company v. United States, decided this date; ante, p. 36. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover and the petition is dismissed.

Trone v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 690 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 28, 1983

V 1981) (EAJA). … Reasonable minds differ, and in this case two administrative review boards of the Department of the Army, the Survivor Benefit Plan Board and the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, concluded that the plaintiff

Quirk v. United States

227 Ct. Cl. 780 · United States Court of Claims · May 29, 1981

Plaintiffs records were referred in March 1974 to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for a formal hearing on his medical condition. … board at a claimant’s request.

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).

Bortin v. United States

138 F. Supp. 251 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1956

Kelly v. … This board affirmed the action of the regional office.

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.

Factors' & Finance Co. v. United States

56 F.2d 902 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1932

The board has uniformly held that an incomplete or imperfect petition setting forth no grounds or facts, as required hy Rule 5 of the board, may be perfected or amended after the time for filing a petition has expired. … Co. v. Loughmiller (D. C.) 193 F. 689 ; Illinois Surety Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 215 F. 334, 339 ; Swift & Co. v. United States, 67 Ct. Cl. 322 ; 14 Op. Attys. Gen. 615. Compare Lewis v. Reynolds, 52 S.

Birdwell v. United States

11 Cl. Ct. 862 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 12, 1987

In Andrews v. United States, 6 Cl.Ct. 204 (1984), aff'd sub. nom; Burden v. … United States, 770 F.2d 179 (Fed.Cir.1985), a four and one-half year delay in challenging a selection board composition was held sufficient to impose laches. See also Brundage v.

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.

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.

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).

Abatemarco

652 F.2d 69 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 24, 1981

Under Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 1, 14, 17, 24 , 310 F.2d 381, 390, 391, 395-96 (1962), cert. denied sub nom. Lipp v. … See also Bruno v. United States, 214 Ct. Cl. 383 , 556 F.2d 1104 (1977); Eurell v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 273, 276-77 , 566 F.2d 1146, 1147-48 (1977).

Sound Ship Building Corp. v. United States

158 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 18, 1962

See Birkeland v. United States, 135 Ct. Cl. 503, 513 ; Dee Hong Lue v. United States, 150 Ct. Cl. 655, 663 , 280 F. 2d 849, 854 ; Ralston Purina Co. v. United States, 75 Ct. … In paragraph V, under the heading, “Why should the Navy help Sound?”

Robert D. Paterson v. The United States

319 F.2d 882 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1963

Williams v. … Compare Hart v.

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.