Case law

ACME Operating Corp. v. United States

74 Ct. Cl. 82 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 8, 1932

Duckett & Co. v. United States, 266 U. S. 149, 152 , and Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 502 , prevent any recovery based thereon. In A. W. Duckett & Co. v. … Co. v. W. R.

Union Pacific Corp. v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 739 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 30, 1992

See Railroad Retirement Board v. Duquesne Warehouse Co., 326 U.S. at 451, 66 S.Ct. at 240 . … See Itel Corp. v. United States Railroad Retirement Board, 710 F.2d 1243 (7th Cir.1983); Mbsouri Pacific Truck Lines, Inc. v.

McKeague v. United States

12 Cl. Ct. 671 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 1, 1987

Count XI Injunction: Barred counsel at board and shareholders’ meetings. … The attendance of McKeague’s counsel at the board meetings would have created an incentive to board members to follow the guidelines set out in formal agreements.

Utah Construction and Mining Company v. The United States

339 F.2d 606 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 12, 1965

The Advisory Board could not grant monetary compensation for this delay (United States v. … WPC Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 323 F.2d 874 , 878, decided Oct. 11, 1963. . See Phoenix Bridge Co. v. United States, 85 Ct.01. 603, 629-630 (1937); Plato v.

National Treasury Employees Union v. United States

20 Cl. Ct. 490 · United States Court of Claims · May 24, 1990

The statute says that Customs officers acting as boarding officers: shall be allowed extra compensation for services in boarding vessels at night or on Sundays or holidays — at the rate prescribed by the Secretary of the … In support of their position they rely on the decision in United States v. Myers, 320 U.S. 561 , 64 S.Ct. 337 , 88 L.Ed. 312, 1051 (1944). That case does not support plaintiffs’ argument.

Architects Building Corp. v. United States

98 Ct. Cl. 368 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 1, 1943

The general rule is, and has been consistently followed since Clark v. United States, 95 U. … Rankin, Sole Surviving and Liquidating Member of the Partnership Firm of Rankin & Kellogg v.

Caravella v. United States

9 Cl. Ct. 280 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 6, 1985

Thus, under § 211(a), this court cannot review the VA Board decision. See, e.g., Slotnick v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 784, 786 (Cl.Ct.1985), and cases cited therein. See also, Gerber v. … Thus, given prior board action, it is not within the province of this court to make factual determinations ab initio. See Dzialo v. United States, supra, at 561.

Topkis Brothers Company v. The United States

297 F.2d 536 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 6, 1961

Art Center School v. United States, 142 F.Supp. 916 , 136 Ct.Cl. 218 (1956). Thus, in Gillsam Mfg. … We find the Board’s thinking in these cases to be persuasive.

Raybestos Manhattan, Inc. v. United States

597 F.2d 1379 · United States Court of Claims · May 16, 1979

See, e.g., Lozano, Inc. v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 366 (1977) (oral authorization by board of directors to take maximum deduction sufficient to fix liability); Inland Sales Co. v. … Tex. 1977) (written minutes of board’s approval of contribution fixed liability); Joe Coker Pontiac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 44 *230 T.C.M.

Volentine and Littleton v. United States

145 F. Supp. 952 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 7, 1956

No Government contract shall contain a provision making final on a question of law the decision of any administrative official, representative, or board.” … But the Supreme Court, in United States v.

Barnes v. United States

105 F. Supp. 817 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1952

In the case of Horowitz v. … McCrary Company v. United States, 84 F.Supp. 368 , 114 Ct.Cl. 12, 35 .

Gevyn Construction Corp. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,851 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 28, 1986

In Bell v. … “This court in reviewing the factual findings of the Board must accept the findings as final and conclusive even if the court would not have reached the same findings or conclusions.” Sperry Corp. v.

American Mail Line, Ltd. v. United States

59 F. Supp. 921 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 2, 1945

United States v. Peck, 102 U. S. 64 ; Stearns Co. v. United States, 291 U. S. 54 . Williston on Contracts (Rev. Ed. 1936), section 794. Nor can plaintiff be considered a mere volunteer. … United States v. American Tobacco Co., 166 U. S. 468 ; Prairie State Bank v. United States, 164 U. S. 227 ; Nashville Industrial Corp. v. United States, 69 C. Cls. 443 ; Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 91 C.

Marlin Firearms Corp. v. United States

83 Ct. Cl. 17 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1936

Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353, 368 ; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347, 356 ; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 604 ; Brinkerhoff v. Aloe, 146 U. S. 515, 517 ; Palmer v. Corning, 156 U. S. 342, 345 ; Richards v. … Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U. S. 150 ; Belding Mfg. Co. v. Challenge Corn Planter Co., 152 U. S. 100 ; Market Street Cable Ry. Co. v. Rowley, 155 U.

Akol v. United States

167 Ct. Cl. 99 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 17, 1964

The Board’s report as approved constitutes a “solid administrative finding” of service-connected disability, as that phrase was used in Aflague, et al. v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 80 (1962), 309 F. 2d 753 . … The facts evidence no intent to countermand the Board’s findings of March 1942 and the Bureau’s approval of those findings.

Carlo Bianchi and Company v. United States

169 F. Supp. 514 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 14, 1959

The Claims and Appeals Board denied the plaintiff’s appeal on December 14, 1948. … But some of the expert witnesses who did give important testimony in this court, did not testify before the Board. In our opinion in Volentine and Little-ton v.

Torncello v. United States

681 F.2d 756 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 16, 1982

to the Board for determination of the factual issues; otherwise, litigation would be protracted and unnecessary delay and expense would result simply in order to have the Board formally decide a fact which legally can be … John Reiner & Co. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 381 , 325 F.2d 438 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 931 (1964) (irregularity in the bid award); Brown & Son Elec. Co. v. United States, 163 Ct.

25 New Chardon Street Ltd. Partnership v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,779 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 8, 1990

Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 586, 592 (Fed.Cir.1987); Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1394 (Fed.Cir.1987); United States v. … It is recognized that: under the CDA a contracting officer’s decision may encompass only the matter of liability; that such a decision may be appealed to a board of contract appeals; and that judicial review of a board decision

Schmidt v. United States

145 Ct. Cl. 632 · United States Court of Claims · May 6, 1959

The Board of Appeals and Review stated that it had considered his contention that “political motives entered into the decision * * * to reassign” him; “however”, it said, “this reassignment was never consummated in view of … Knotts v. United States, 128 C. Cls. 489 . Being unlawful, it did not have to be obeyed. Hence, a refusal to obey was not insubordination.

First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. United States

38 F.2d 925 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 3, 1930

Sinton v. County of Carter (C. C.) 23 F. 535, 538 . … State v. Campbell, 103 N. C. 344 , 9 S. E. 410 ; Morrison v. Love-joy, 6 Minn. 353 ( Gil. 224 ).