Case law

Josef Best, D/B/A Firm Josef Best v. United States. A. Diehl, D/B/A Firm A. Diehl v. United States. A. Hoellein, D/B/A Firm A. Hoellein Gmbh v. United States. August Faber, D/B/A Construction Firm, Faber & Schnepp v. United States. Julius Berger v. United States. Mueller-Altvatter Company v. United States

292 F.2d 274 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1961

292 F.2d 274 Josef BEST, D/B/A Firm Josef Best v. UNITED STATES. A. DIEHL, D/B/A Firm A. Diehl v. UNITED STATES. A. HOELLEIN, D/B/A Firm A. Hoellein GMBH v. UNITED STATES. … August FABER, D/B/A Construction Firm, Faber & Schnepp v. UNITED STATES. Julius BERGER v. UNITED STATES. MUELLER-ALTVATTER COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. No. 394-59. No. 461-59. No. 11-60. No. 12-60. No. 18-60. No. 106-60.

Huff

578 F.2d 1389 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 3, 1978

See Bell v. United States, 366 U.S. 393, 401 (1961); Andrews v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 561, 562-63 (1966). … It appears that the retiring board may have been authorized to determine whether plaintiffs disability was incurred in combat or whether it was caused by the explosion of the instrumentality of war. See Campbell v.

Ampex Corp.

224 Ct. Cl. 609 · United States Court of Claims · May 2, 1980

In this patent infringement case defendant and Memorex Corporation (Memorex), third-party defendant, seek interlocutory review under Rule 53(c)(2)(i) of a discovery order filed March 20, 1980, by Trial Judge Browne. … As support for this conclusion the trial judge cites our decision in Leesona Corp. v. United States, 220 Ct.

General Electric Co.

216 Ct. Cl. 465 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1978

See, Steen v. United States, 211 Ct.Cl. 348 (1976). … See, Petrofsky v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 886 (1975).

J. E. Robertson Co. v. United States

437 F.2d 1360 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 19, 1971

C.A. v. United States, supra, 435 F.2d pp. 875, 881-882. Although the Board concluded that the contract drawings did not indicate the thickness of the concrete, we think its interpretation is incorrect. … V, 1965-1969).

Duggan

618 F.2d 123 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 31, 1979

In Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. … See also Yee v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 388 , 512 F.2d 1383 (1975); Weiss v. United States, 187 Ct. Cl. 1 , 408 F.2d 416 (1969).

Madison v. United States

174 Ct. Cl. 985 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 18, 1966

Accordingly, the rule of Kelly v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 571 , 138 F. … See, also, Smith v. United States, 151 Ct. Cl. 205, 207, 209 (1960).

General Electric Co., Aerospace Group v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,899 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1990

Plaintiff cites United States v. The Boeing Company, 802 F.2d 1390 (Fed.Cir.1986), as the controlling case. … See Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States, 313 U.S. 289 , 61 S.Ct. 995 , 85 L.Ed. 1361 (1941).

Amicon v. United States

15 F. Supp. 59 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 1, 1936

In Thomaston Cotton Mills v. … In Bryant-Link Co. v.

Skip Kirchdorfer, Inc. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,231 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 9, 1984

July 16, 1982) (order transferring related claim to agency board); Roubin & Janeiro, Inc. v. … Federal Corp. v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 735, 379 (1983) (MILLER, J.); E.D.S. Federal Corp. v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 212, 214-15 (1983) *655 (LYDON, J.). See also Space Age Engineering, Inc. v.

United Profit-Sharing Corp. v. United States

66 Ct. Cl. 171 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 18, 1928

Co. v. Doyle, 225 Fed. 437, 440 , the court said, “ Mere bookkeeping entries can not preclude the Government from collecting its revenues. … A. 30, the board thoroughly considered and disapproved the regulations under the provisions of which the commissioner disallowed plaintiff’s claims.

Brownell v. United States

164 Ct. Cl. 406 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1964

Elchibegoff v. United States, 106 C. Cls. 641 ; 329 U.S. 629 ; Loren H. Wittner v. United States, No. 48043, decided March 1, 1948; Stanley H. Borah v. … Burchell v. Marsh, 17 How. 344, 349 ; Kihlberg v. United States, 97 U.S. 398 ; United States v. Gleason, 175 U.S. 588, 602 ; Ripley v. United States, 223 U.S. 695, 701 .

Mustard v. United States

155 F. Supp. 325 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 9, 1957

For example, the Supreme Court in Quid v. … National Cash .Register Co. v. Verbrugge, 1933, 263 Mich. 243 , 248 N.W. 608, 609 . 5 . Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed.), Vol. IX, p. 5. 6 . Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed.), Vol. IX, p. 59. 7 . But see Bostwick v.

Louden Machinery Co. v. United States

74 Ct. Cl. 582 · United States Court of Claims · May 2, 1932

In 1925 the board of directors refunded these interest charges to the makers of the notes. … See Northwestern Cabinet Company v. Commissioner, 13 B. T. A. 533, and Dieckerhoff, Raffloer & Co. v. Commissioner, 17 B. T. A. 1251.

Ross

652 F.2d 71 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 21, 1981

S. 991 (1975) (unfair to invite class members "on board a sinking ship”). 1 As we conclude this action must be treated as brought by Ross alone, it follows this petition must be dismissed. … Although Ross’ application to the Correction Board was denied on July 2, 1980, applications to a correction board in discharge cases are permissive, not mandatory, and do not serve to toll or defer the statute of limitations

Marion & Rye Valley Railway Co. v. United States

60 Ct. Cl. 230 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 26, 1925

The finding of the amount of the award for just compensation by the board of referees is prima facie in this court, but the prima facie effect of the award may be overcome if it appears that the board applied an erroneous … Bauman v. Ross, 161 U. S. 548 , 574. The question is what has the plaintiff lost? If it has lost nothing it would be gross injustice to require the United States to pay something for nothing.

Ross

618 F.2d 122 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 8, 1979

Ramsey v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 1042 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1068 (1979); Kirby v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 527, 531 (1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 919 (1974). … Although plaintiffs application before the Board for Correction of Naval Records was denied on August 31, 1973, such an action by a correction board does not affect *690 the running of the court’s statutory limitations period

Swedish-American Line v. United States

83 Ct. Cl. 63 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1936

Examinations were had by the Board of Special Inquiry and the records of the proceedings before this board were also before the Secretary, all of which he considered in connection with plaintiff’s protests or appeals set … Plaintiff relies upon the case of Lloyd Sobaudo Societa Anonima Per Aziono v. Elting, 287 U. S. 329 .

Winstar Corp. v. United States

21 Cl. Ct. 112 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 27, 1990

Louis v. … E.g., POSSE, 477 U.S. at 52 , 106 S.Ct. at 2396 -97 (citing Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 350-54 , 55 S.Ct. 432, 434-37 , 79 L.Ed. 912 (1935)); Lynch v.

A. D. Cummins & Co. v. United States

70 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1930

The performance of this stipulation was rendered impossible by the plaintiff, not the board. In United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 205 U. … See also Clement v. Cash, 21 N. Y. 253, 257 ; Little v. Banks, 85 N. Y. 258, 266 .”