Case law

Bliss v. United States

373 F.2d 936 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1967

Brown and they had three children: *360 Katherine Brown Kichardson, Clarence G. Brown, and Dean E. Brown, Jr. … Plaintiffs also cite: Petschek v. United States, 335 F. 2d 734 (2d Cir. 1964); Locke Manufacturing Cos. v. United States, 237 F. Supp. 80 (D. Conn. 1964); and Smith Hotel Enterprises, Inc. v. Nelson, 236 F.

Borland v. United States

57 Ct. Cl. 411 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 12, 1922

New York v. Sage, 239 U. S. 57 ; Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U. S. 352 ; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312 ; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548 ; United States v. Russell, 13 Wall. 623 ; Boom Co. v. … Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U. S. 146, 156 ; United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 88 .

H. N. Miller v. The United States

331 F.2d 854 · United States Court of Claims · May 15, 1964

Defendant relies on such cases as Fritz v. Commissioner, 76 F.2d 460 , Anderson v. … Commissioner v. Smith, 5 Cir., 173 F.2d 470 ; Long v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 173 F.2d 471 .

Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. United States

124 F. Supp. 359 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1954

Co. v. U. S., 330 U. S. 248 , the Supreme Court said, at page 254: But in general the use to which the property is to be put is the controlling test of its military or naval character. … The War Production Board had no control over allocations issued by it once the allocation was reported completed. 15.

Hortentia R. Acosta v. The United States

320 F.2d 382 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1963

United States Railroad Retirement Board, 286 F.2d 480 (C.A.6, 1961); *385 Jones v. United States, 266 F.2d 654 (C.A.5, 1959). Defendant answers, however, that Mrs. … In any event, the plaintiff had the right to sue in this court without exhausting any administrative remedy and her resort to the Correction Board does not affect her claim here. Cf. Friedman v.

May v. United States

132 Ct. Cl. 349 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 7, 1955

MaddeN, Judge; and LittletoN, Judge, dissenting for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Irving Nadelhaft v. … Your answer to this question on both the Form 57 which you submitted to the Board of U. S.

Mountain Home Contractors v. United States

425 F.2d 1260 · United States Court of Claims · May 15, 1970

Co. v. … The interpretation of the meaning of a contract is a question of law to be determined by the court, and the court is not bound by a decision of the Board with respect thereto. Bailey Specialized Bldgs., Inc. v.

J. I. Case Co. v. United States

32 F. Supp. 754 · United States Court of Claims · May 6, 1940

Walker v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 88 F.2d 170 ; Lakeland Grocery Co. v. Commissioner, 36 B.T.A. 289 . Cf. Maryland Casualty Co. v. … The plaintiff cites a number of decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals in support of its position. We do not undertake to distinguish them because we think the decision of the Board in Clark Thread Company v.

Schultz v. United States

132 F. Supp. 953 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1955

Detroit Automotive Products Corp. v. Commissioner, 203 F. 2d 785 ; Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner, 199 F. 2d 902 ; Arkansas Motor Coaches Ltd., Inc. v. Commissioner, 198 F. 2d 189 ; Crude Oil Corp. v. … Thus a petition to the Board of Tax Appeals was held to have been timely filed when it had been delivered to the desk of the mail room of the Board during regular business hours even though no official of the Board was then

Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. United States

170 Ct. Cl. 712 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1965

Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165, 172 (1914); Flippin Materials Co. v. United States, 160 Ct. Cl. 357, 365 (1963), 312 F. 2d 408 . … Atlantic Dredging Co. v. United States, supra, at p. 502.

Stone v. United States

160 Ct. Cl. 128 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1963

No hearing was held by the board on the plaintiff’s application. A subsequent petition by the plaintiff for reconsideration was denied by the board. 24. … Since the evidence in this case was taken, and the findings of the trial commissioner reported prior to the opinion of the Supreme Court in Glidden Company v.

Wilmot v. United States

205 Ct. Cl. 666 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 18, 1974

He then sought *673 review by the CSC Board of Appeals and Review. By decision dated August 30,1968, the board upheld the decision of the Appeals Examining Office. … Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co., 303 U.S. 41 *681 (1938) ; Haynes v. United States, 190 Ct. Cl. 9 , 418 F. 2d 1380 (1969) ; Piccone v. United States, 186 Ct. Cl. 752 , 407 F. 2d 866 (1969) ; Pine v.

Albrecht

221 Ct. Cl. 929 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 2, 1979

In United States v. … Accardi v.

Fox Valley Engineering Inc. v. United States

151 Ct. Cl. 228 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 2, 1960

Ross & Co. v. United States, 126 Ct. … Holpuch Co. v. United States, 104 Ct.

Harris

650 F.2d 287 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 25, 1980

The Correction Board denied relief and so did the court. In its order dismissing the petition, the court said that the claim was indistinguishable from and squarely controlled by United States v. … United States v. King, supra.

Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. v. The United States

345 F.2d 535 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1965

Levering & Garrigues Co. v. United States, 73 Ct.Cl. 566, 574 (1932). Such positive representations amounted to a warranty (Atlantic Dredging Co. v. … Atlantic Dredging Co. v. United States, supra, 53 Ct.Cl. at p. 502 .

Wright v. United States

60 Ct. Cl. 519 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 13, 1925

Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 141, 143 , the Supreme Court used this language: “Men must turn square corners when they deal with the *543 Government. … The Chicago Ordnance Salvage Board was in a state of almost inextricable confusion.

Keene Corp. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,670 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 1, 1989

Porter’s fifth amendment claim embodies the same rationale as that of Fibre-board’s. 5. … Accord Brown v.

Schubring v. United States

46 F. Supp. 1006 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1942

Upon this stipulation the Board entered a decision November 22,1940, finding an overpayment by plaintiff’s husband of $1,766.42. … Braun v. United States, Cong. No. 17749, decided this day. Plaintiff’s petition is dismissed. It is so ordered. MaddeN, Judge; JoNes, Judge; WhitakeR, Judge; and Whaley, Chief Justice, concur.

Victoria Mines, Inc. v. United States

126 F. Supp. 205 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 30, 1954

Richardson v. United States, 114 C. Cls. 695, 697-698 . … Alabama Flake Graphite Company, et al. v. United States, 125 C. Cls. 635 .