Case law

Brown v. United States

150 Ct. Cl. 836 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1960

Davis v. Woodring, 111 F. 2d 523 ,; Marshall v. Wyman, 132 F. Supp. 169 ; Olenick v. Brucher, 173 F. Supp. 493 . … Torti v. United States, 135 Ct. Cl. 214 ; Peyton v. United States, 120 Ct. Cl. 722 ; Holliday v. United States, 114 Ct. Cl. 702 ; Snauffer v. Stinson, 155 F. 2d 861 ; Van Horn v.

Brown v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 409 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 20, 1983

Hutton & Co. v. Brown, 305 F.Supp. 371, 402-03 (S.D.Tex.1969); United States v. … Brown v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 31 (1983). .

Brown v. United States

22 Cl. Ct. 211 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 21, 1990

Plaintiffs, citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) point out that pro se plaintiffs are “entitled to minimal latitude in the presentation and preservation of their rights.” … Moreover, the court does not read Haines v. Kerner to mean that pro se plaintiffs may disregard the Rules by which all other litigants must abide.

Brown v. United States

1 Ct. Cl. 377 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1865

This protest is signed by “Brown & Winchester.” Whether these are the Robert D. Brown and James Winchester who are claimants, is not alleged or proved. … The case of Ballard *380 v. Thomas, 19 How., 382 , appears to be decisive of the point in dispute.

Brown v. United States

14 F. Supp. 520 · United States Court of Claims · May 4, 1936

Brown v. United States, now pending in the Court of Claims of the United States, and the dismissal of said action with prejudice.” … Lang-Kidde Co. v. United States, 2 F.Supp. 768 , 77 Ct.Cl. 280 .

Brown v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1984

See Brown v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 31 (1983). … See Brown v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 31 (1983).

Arthur J. Brown and Frieda G. Brown v. The United States

391 F.2d 653 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 15, 1968

Brown and Frieda G. Brown, for the year 1955. On May 17, 1967, the plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment presenting the following issue for disposition by this court. … Helvering v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 296 U.S. 85, 89 , 56 S.Ct. 70 , 80 L.Ed. 62 (1935), rehearing denied, 296 U.S. 664 , 56 S.Ct. 303 , 80 L.Ed. 473 .

Brown v. United States

143 Ct. Cl. 605 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 8, 1958

San Millan v. United States, 139 C. Cls. 485 ; Suter v. United States, 139 C. Cls. 466 , cert. den. 355 U. S. 926 ; Friedman v. United States, 141 C. Cls. 239 , and Patterson v. United States, 141 C. Cls. 435 . … The board’s finding was as follows: “Major Morris B. Brown is not permanently incapacitated for active service.”

Brown v. United States

39 Ct. Cl. 255 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 15, 1904

Brown v. United States

37 F. Supp. 444 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 3, 1941

Brown, decedent’s son and one-half owner of the Pryor Brown Transfer Company. (See last paragraph of finding 2.) … Turner v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 85 F.2d 919 ; Commissioner v. Bryn Mawr Trust Co., 3 Cir., 87 F.2d 607, 609 ; United States v. Mitchell, 7 Cir., 74 F.2d 571 ; In re Atkins’ Estate, 5 Cir., 30 F.2d 761, 764 .)

Brown v. United States

109 Ct. Cl. 52 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 2, 1947

Brown v. United States

230 Ct. Cl. 735 · United States Court of Claims · May 7, 1982

Brown and the Government, arising out of his employment by the Army in Germany. As originally filed, this case also involved plaintiff Ronald H. … As these subsidiary claims seem to involve action by both military administrative appeals authorities and the Merit Systems Protection Board, we take this opportunity to suggest to plaintiff that if he elects to pursue those

Brown v. United States

141 Ct. Cl. 557 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 5, 1958

A disposition board on May 1,1947, recommended that the petitioner appear before an Army Retiring Board. … Suter v. United States, 139 C. Cls. 446 , certiorari denied, 355 U. S. 926 .

Brown v. United States

227 Ct. Cl. 786 · United States Court of Claims · May 29, 1981

Carruth v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 422 , 627 F.2d 1068 (1980); Walton v. United States, 213 Ct.Cl. 755 (1977); and Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599 , 372 F.2d 1002 (1967).

Brown v. United States

4 Ct. Cl. 223 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1868

The vouchers themselves are irregular: some of them are in the name of William E, Brown, others in the name of Kirkham & Brown; and if they were set up here as express contracts, would only support actions iiu the name of

Brown v. United States

195 Ct. Cl. 103 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1971

Brown, 0 962 620. … Smith v. United States, 168 Ct. Cl. 545, 553 (1964); Farrar v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 1008, 1034 , 358 F. 2d 965 (1965); Hoppock v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 1147, 1167 (1966). 2.

Brown v. United States

101 Ct. Cl. 427 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1943

Mumma v. United States, 99 C. Cls. 261 , decided February 1, 1943.

Brown v. United States

4 Cl. Ct. 175 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 22, 1983

. § 815 , was recommended over article 32 court-martial proceedings, “provided that COL Brown agrees to immediate retirement.” … The board’s deliberations were not recorded. At the conclusion of its proceedings, the board “determined that Colonel Roy A. Brown did not serve satisfactorily in his highest and present temporary grade, Colonel (0-6).”

Brown v. United States

1 Ct. Cl. 307 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1865

On the 1st of July, 1861, Albert Brown, of Kingston, N. H., entered into a contract with Major Morris S. … It is very clear that the United States is concluded by the inspection and approval of Patten, unless deceit and fraud were practised on him by Brown, or there -was collusion between Brown and the inspector to defraud the

Brown v. United States

32 Ct. Cl. 432 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 14, 1897

While adhering to the interpretation of the treaty as given in the opinion in the Brown Case, the court must regard it as inoperative for the reasous hereinbefore set forth.