Case law

Yount v. United States

25 Cl. Ct. 289 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 12, 1992

See Sawyer v. United States, 930 F.2d 1577, 1580 (Fed.Cir.1991). … Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed.Cir.1983); Maier v. Orr, 754 F.2d 973, 984 (Fed.Cir.1985).

Rabineau v. United States

182 Ct. Cl. 371 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 19, 1968

Everett v. United States, supra at 16. … Margolin v. United. States, supra; Greener v. United States, 376 U.S. 149 , 161 n. 16 (1964); Williamson v. United States, supra at 243.

Wyant v. United States

46 Ct. Cl. 205 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 13, 1911

Subsequent to the final delivery of the work the matter of delay in its completion was referred to the Lighthouse Board, and the finding of the board charges 38 days’ delay to the defendants and expressly recommends an apportionment … (District of Columbia v. Camden Iron Works, 118 U. S., 453 ; Holland Torpedo Boat Co. v. Nixon, 155 N. Y. Sup., 573; Ittner v. United States, 43 C. Cls., 336 .)

Gilliland

215 Ct. Cl. 953 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 11, 1977

See Sharp v. United States, ante, at 883. … See also Branning v. United States, ante at 949.

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 .

J.F. Shea Co. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,811 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 30, 1983

In American Shipbuilding Co. v. … In Hardeman-Monier-Hutcherson v.

Bein v. United States

101 Ct. Cl. 144 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 6, 1943

Carlin Construction Co. v. United States, 92 C. Cls. 280, 305 . The first item involves the extra costs plaintiffs incurred in furnishing temporary heat. … Hollerbach v. United, States, 233 U. S. 165 .

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.

Kennedy v. United States

162 Ct. Cl. 752 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1963

See also, Ancker v. United States, 116 Ct. Cl. 384 (1950); and Campbell v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 122 , 132 F. … (See, e.g., McGrath v. United States, supra.) *759 C. RESERVE OEEICER EXEMPTION EROM THE DUAL COMPENSATION STATUTE In Tanner v. United States, 129 Ct. Cl. 792 , 125 F.

Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. United States

34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,436 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 28, 1988

In Olson Plumbing & Heating Co. v. … See, e.g., Pelliccia v.

Hanson v. United States

92 F. Supp. 972 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 2, 1950

In Cohan v. … Piggly Wiggly Corporation v. United States, 112 C. Cls. 391 , and Richard M. Edelman et al. v. United States, 117 C. Cls. 400 .

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.

Oro Fina Consolidated Mines, Inc. v. United States

92 F. Supp. 1016 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 2, 1950

Plaintiff sought to recover on the theory that the orders of the Board constituted a taking of its property. … In Mugler v.

California v. United States

132 F. Supp. 208 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 7, 1955

United States v. Carmack, 329 U. S. 230 ; Oklahoma v. Atkinson Co., 313 U. S. 508, 534 ; Wayne County v. United States, 53 C. Cls. 417 , aff’d. 252 U. S. 574 . … United States v. Louisiana, 127 U. S. 182, 192 .

Earle v. United States

3 F. Supp. 849 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1933

May 24, 1928, the plaintiff’s contention was sustained by the Board of Tax Appeals and a decision was entered that there was no deficiency for 1917. … In the case of David Daube v. United States, 53 S. Ct. 597, 598 , 77 L.

Harvey S. Haislip v. United States. Scott G. Lamb, William I. Lehrfeld v. United States. Mary S. Simon v. United States

296 F.2d 469 · United States Court of Claims · May 3, 1961

After our decision in Gordon v. … Indeed, we had already come to the conclusion that the law was as the Board said it was. We so decided in Gordon v. United States, supra.

Fernandez v. United States

652 F.2d 70 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1981

Wilmot v. United States, 205 Ct.Cl. 666 (1974). Later she was employed by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. … Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 (1976). Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiffs petition is dismissed.

Murphy v. United States

209 Ct. Cl. 352 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1976

Hart v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 925 , cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1049 (1914); Haynes v. United States, 190 Ct. Cl. 9 , 418 F. 2d 1380 (1969); OoTien v. United States, 177 Ct. … E.g., Dounias v. United States, post at 688; Christie v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 333 , 518 F. 2d 584 (1975); Leone v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 334 (1974); Dorl v. United States, 200 Ct.

Mosely v. Department of the Navy

229 Ct. Cl. 718 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 23, 1981

Since petitioner failed to present any evidence in support of this contention before the Board, we cannot consider it here. *723 IV. … V.

Allied Materials & Equipment Co.

22 Cont. Cas. Fed. 80,388 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1976

It appealed to the Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals which set the settlement aside for *715 duress and awarded $457,479 net, denying, plaintiff’s breach claims as beyond Board jurisdiction. … “In Casman v. United States, 135 Ct. Cl. 647 (1956), we held that under law previous to Pub. L. 92-415 amending 28 U.S.C.