Case law

General Electric Company, a Corporation v. The United States

416 F.2d 1320 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 17, 1969

Board, or of this court until the present motion for reconsideration. … Henneberger v. United States, 407 F.2d 1340 , 187 Ct.Cl. 265 (Mar.1969); Ruderer v. United States, Ct.Cl. No. 85-67, order of February 14, 1969 [ 412 F.2d 1285 ].

Denkler v. United States

9 Cl. Ct. 654 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 11, 1986

Puglisi v. United States, 564 F.2d 403 , 215 Ct.Cl. 86 , (1977). … In these decisions, Gradall v. United States, 161 Ct.Cl. 714 , 329 F.2d 960 (1963) and Cockrill v.

Brinck v. United States

53 Ct. Cl. 170 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 25, 1918

In March, 1907, the claims of the contractors were referred to a board of engineers, and that board made a report upon said claims on April 5,1907. … Kihlberg v.

Hines v. United States

95 Ct. Cl. 156 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1941

Plaintiff is a naval officer who was found by a Naval Retiring Board to be incapacitated for active service. … Greenwald, Jr. v. United States, 88 C. Cls. 264 ; Charles G. Wadbrook v. United States, 90 C. Cls. 480 ; and Henry M. Butler v. United States, 91 C. Cls. 88 .

Litton Systems, Inc.

215 Ct. Cl. 1056 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 3, 1978

The parties subsequently agreed not to move for reconsideration of the Board’s decision. … See Landis at 257; Dellinger v. Mitchell, 442 F.2d 782, 785-87 (D.C. Cir. 1970); McSurely v. McClellan, 426 F.2d 664, 671-72 (D.C. Cir. 1970).

Neumaticos Goodyear S. A. v. United States

73 F. Supp. 969 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1947

Horowitz v. United States, 267 U. S. 458 ; Omnia, Commercial Co., Inc. v. United States, 261 U. S. 502 ; Hallman Brothers v. United States, 107 C. Cls. 555 ; Froemming Bros, Inc. v. United States, 108 C. … Cls. 193 ; Gothwaite v. United States, 102 C.

X-Tyal International Corp. v. United States

29 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,182 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 29, 1982

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Board. I. … Discount Co. v. United States, 213 Ct. Cl. 567 , 554 F.2d. 435 , cert. denied 434 U.S. 938 (1977); Universal Fiberglass Corp. v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 206 , 537 F.2d 393 (1976). AFFIRMED.

Nager Electric Company, Inc. And Keystone Engineering Corporation v. The United States

368 F.2d 847 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 14, 1966

The Board’s action is integral to the converted claim, and there can be no judicially cognizible injury, no violation of the contract, no claim for court relief, until the Board has acted or had *859 a chance to act. … The answer is that, with respect to these “disputes-clause” items, the trials will all be had, not in court but before the Boards of Contract Appeals — pursuant to United States v.

Jefferson Construction Co. v. United States

168 Ct. Cl. 648 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 11, 1964

The proceedings before that Board were suspended when, in the view of the parties, neither the Board nor the contracting officer had funds available to make payment to the plaintiff. … Although the petition herein was filed after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Glidden Co. v.

Littlefield-Greene, Inc. v. United States

109 F. Supp. 388 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 13, 1953

Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 2579; Wells v. United States, 318 U. S. 257, 260 . We take judicial notice that plaintiff’s allegations are true. … Brown, Balph P. Greene, and Littlefield-Green, Inc., for violation of Title 18, U. S. C. sec. 88 , based upon the same transactions.

Wilson v. United States

231 Ct. Cl. 958 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 3, 1982

These were denied by the Naval Discharge Review Board (ndrv) and the Board for the Correction of Naval Records (bcnr), the most recent denial being on August 7, 1981. … Lipp v.

Corbetta Construction Co., Inc. v. The United States

408 F.2d 450 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 14, 1969

See Seeds v. United States, 92 Ct.Cl. 97 (1940), cert. denied, 312 U.S. 697 , 61 S.Ct. 731 , 85 L.Ed. 1131 (1941) ; Cannon Construction Co. v. … United States, 319 F.2d 173 , 162 Ct.Cl. 94 (1963) ; Brock & Blevins Co., Inc. v. United States, 343 F.2d 951 , 170 Ct.Cl. 52 (1965) ; Columbus Jack Corp. v. United States, 170 Ct.Cl. 902 (1965) (order).

Charles C. Harper v. The United States

312 F.2d 436 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1963

I concur with what we said in Friedman v. … Nor do I think it conflicts with either Proper v. United States, 139 Ct.Cl. 511 , 154 F.Supp. 317 , or Patterson v. United States, 141 Ct.Cl. 435 . In both of them plaintiff’s malady -was discovered after his discharge.

C.L. Michner, Inc.

618 F.2d 121 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 20, 1979

This case is one of three appealed to the court from a denial of an equitable adjustment by the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals. … Co. v. United States, Docket No. 277-77, is discussed ante at 639. On April 20, 1979 the court, by order, adopted the recommended decision of Trial Judge Robert J.

Quinnipiack Club v. United States

4 F. Supp. 996 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 6, 1933

the said board might elect; a committee on admissions, to consist of five members of the boai’d; a committee on nominations, to consist of three members of the board and two other members; and such other committees as it … See Army & Navy Club of America v. United States, 53 F.(2d) 277 , 72 Ct. Cl. 684 , and Block Hall v. U. S., 57 F.(2d) 918 , 74 Ct. Cl. 609 .

Teetor-Hartley Motor Corp. v. United States

62 Ct. Cl. 271 · United States Court of Claims · May 24, 1926

Major Browne had no such authority. His duties were to make surveys of the sources of production, ascertain the quantities of production, and prepare purchase requisitions. … This court in the case of Jacob Reed's Sons v. United States, 60 C.

James D. Morrow v. The United States

300 F.2d 779 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 6, 1962

The Correction Board requested an opinion of the Surgeon General who replied : “The finding of the physical evaluation board, 2 November 1954, Valley Forge Army Hospital, that Lt. Colonel James D. … [Italics supplied] This court, in the case of Remaley v.

Carman v. United States

166 F. Supp. 759 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 8, 1958

Tacoma Dredging Co. v. United States, 52 Ct.Cl. 447 . See also Arundel Corporation v. … De Armas, v. United States, 108 Ct.Cl. 436 , 70 F. Supp. 605 . The plaintiff is not entitled to recover and the petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Rumsey v. United States

88 Ct. Cl. 254 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 9, 1939

*263 MEMORANDUM Under the provisions of the contract involved, the plaintiff’s claim was considered by a Board of Changes made up of two representatives of the Navy Department and one representative of the plaintiff. … McShain Co. v. United States, 83 C. Cls. 406 , and authorities therein cited. The plaintiff is. clearly entitled to the judgment awarded.

Conoc Construction Corp. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,371 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 29, 1983

On January 5, 1982, Conoe appealed the contracting officer’s final decision to the Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals. … Arlington Alliance, Ltd. v. United States, 231 *148 Ct.Cl.—, 685 F.2d 1353, 1359 (1982). Accord, W.M. Schlosser Co. v. United States, 705 F.2d 1336 (Fed.Cir.1983); Skelly and Loy v.