Case law

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

McCord v. United States

230 Ct. Cl. 849 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 23, 1982

Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 1, 24 , 310 F.2d 381, 395-96 (1962), cert. denied sub nom. Lipp v. United States, 373 U.S. 932 (1963). … See King v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 876 (1977).

Germain School of Photography, Inc. v. United States

150 Ct. Cl. 841 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1960

837 and V-899. … The Board held that a fair and reasonable rate for contract V-837 was $0,497 per student hour and $0,523 per student hour for contract V-899.

S.O.G. of Arkansas v. United States

546 F.2d 367 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1976

See, e.g., Space Corp. v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 1, 5-6 , 470 F. 2d 536, 538-39 (1972); Jamsar, Inc. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 819, 827 , 442 F. 2d 930, 934 (1971); Woodcrest Constr. Co. v. … Co. v. United States, 184 Ct. Cl. 1, 12-13 , 395 F. 2d 783, 789-90 (1968); Blount Bros. Constr. Co. v. United States, 171 Ct. Cl. 478, 496 , 346 F. 2d 962, 972-73 (1965); Beacon Constr. Co. of Mass. v.

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 .”

Loftis v. United States

76 F. Supp. 816 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1948

In Peter Kiewit Son’s Co. v. … Ruff v. United. States, 96 Ct.Cl. 148, 164 .

Universal Fiberglass Corp. v. United States

537 F.2d 400 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 16, 1976

Co. v. United States, 84 Ct. Cl. 570 (1937)), elsewhere in the Federal court system (J. W. Bateson Co. v. … Supp. 437 (1946), and General Elevator Co v. United States, 122 Ct. Cl 467 (1952).

Scott Aviation v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,901 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 24, 1990

Mendenhall v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 78, 84 (1990); Claude E. Atkins Enters, v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 644, 646 (1988). … Corp. v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 146, 147 (1983); see also Crippen and Graen Corp. v. United States, 18 Cl.Ct. 237, 240-41 (1989).

Savoy Construction Co. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,109 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 29, 1983

Comb Co. v. … In recent decisions, courts and boards have cast a critical eye on the concept of an automatic recovery of home office overhead whenever a contract, completion is delayed. For example, in W.G. Cornell Co. v.

Beaconwear Clothing Co. v. United States

355 F.2d 583 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 21, 1966

United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Co., 328 U.S. 234 (1946); Beacon Construction Co. v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 1 , 314 F. 2d 501 (1963). … Berkeley v. United States, 149 Ct. Cl. 549 , 276 F. 2d 9 (1960); United States v.

In re Judicial Misconduct

2 Cl. Ct. 255 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 15, 1983

Cole and possibly other plaintiffs in Baskett v. … See Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765-66 , 100 S.Ct. 2455, 2463-64 , 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980); Flaksa v.

Basch v. United States

52 Ct. Cl. 134 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 29, 1917

In Lamar v. Browne, 92 U. … In the meantime the suit of Lamar v. Browne, 92 U. S., 187 , had been brought, as also that of Lamar v. McCulloch,, 115 U. S., 163 .

Dravo-Groves v. United States

30 Cont. Cas. Fed. 70,186 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1982

But see Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute v. United States, 677 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1982). The second is that defendant is improperly seeking actual rather than liquidated damages. … See generally Santa Fe Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 1048 , cert. denied, 459, U.S. 1086 (1982); Roubin & Janeiro, Inc. v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 580 (1981); Warwick Construction, Inc. v.

Turvene v. United States

14 Cl. Ct. 227 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 3, 1988

[the claims] could conceivably be appealable to the board....” Turvene v. DOE, No. DC3448510564, slip op. at 2 (citations omitted). … However, plaintiff had the opportunity to appeal to the full board *232 of the MSPB or to lodge an appeal with the Federal Circuit. See Bruning v.

Kellerblock

618 F.2d 119 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 29, 1979

Appeals (Board). … The Board affirmed the decision of the BLM in all respects.

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.

Vance v. United States

30 Ct. Cl. 252 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 1, 1895

(Hamilton v. Dillin, 21 Wall. R., 73.) The capture was made by a military expedition in hostile territory, and was a lawful capture. (Young v. United States, 97 U. S. R., 39 .) … In this instance the military board was without jurisdiction to try the question of the claimants’ loyalty or to establish their ownership in the property or to determine their right to it or its proceeds.