Case law

Hannington v. United States

161 Ct. Cl. 432 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1963

Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82, 84 (1921); Culligan v. United States, 107 Ct. Cl 222, 223 (1946), cert. denied 330 U.S. 848 ; Jordan v. United States, 138 Ct. Cl. 647, 648 (1957); Monday v. … National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 1229, Int. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 346 U. S. 464, 472, 474, 476-77 (1953); National Labor Relations Board v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9, 17 (1962)).

Swift & Co. v. United States

38 F.2d 365 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 17, 1930

This construction prevailed at all times prior to the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in Sweets Company of America v. … Corp., et al. v.

John H. Frederick v. United States

280 F.2d 844 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1960

FREDERICK v. UNITED STATES. No. 111-56. United States Court of Claims. July 15, 1960. Robert E. Sher, Washington, D. C., William P. Bernton, and Sher, Oppenheimer & Harris, Washington, D. … plaintiff's incapacity; the findings of the Retiring Board and the 1952 Disability Board's findings as opposed by the findings of the Medical Board and the Physical Evaluation Board.

Kennedy v. United States

23 Ct. Cl. 363 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1888

In United States v. … (Murray v. Gibson, 15 How., 421, 423 ; McEwen v. Den, 24 How., 242, 244; Harvey v. Tyler, 2 Wall., 328, 347 ; Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall., 596, 599 ; Twenty Per Cent.

Miller v. United States

652 F.2d 70 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 24, 1981

The United States Civil Service Commission Appeals Review Board (board) affirmed the FEAA decision on April 21, 1977. Plaintiff argues that his removal was procedurally defective for several reasons. … Moreover, we do not understand plaintiffs reliance on Ricucci v. United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 1 , 425 F.2d 1252 (1970).

Kratz v. United States

300 F.2d 461 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1962

Section 507 is entitled “Regular army oeeicers — selectioN boards — PROMOTION generallt.” … The defendant contends that sections 501 through 514 of Title V relate only to permanent promotions in the Regular Army; that section *483 507 entitled “Regular army officers — selectioN boards— PROMOTION generally” therefore

West Coast General Corp. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,773 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 18, 1989

Services, Inc. v. United States, 6 Cl.Ct. 257, 262 (1984). … See Tecom, Inc. v. United States, 732 F.2d 935, 936 (Fed.Cir.1984); Z.A.N. Co. v. United States, 6 Cl.Ct. 298, 304 (1984).

Philadelphia Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. United States

3 F. Supp. 655 · United States Court of Claims · May 29, 1933

Ed. 968 , and in Denman v. Slayton, 282 U. S. 514 , 51 S. Ct. 269 , 75 L. Ed. 500 . … We fail to see the parallel between the question presented in this case and that decided in National Life Insurance Co. v. United States, supra, and in Denman v. Slayton, supra.

McNaghten v. United States

17 F. Supp. 509 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1937

Freuler v. Helvering, 291 U.S. 35 , 54 S.Ct. 308 , 78 L.Ed. 634 . … In the case of White v.

Mackey v. United States

142 F. Supp. 922 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1956

Pursuant to Army regulations, a disposition board composed of 3 medical officers was convened at the Fitzsimons General Hospital December 11, 1946, and recommended that plaintiff be ordered before a retiring board. … Golding v. United States, 130 F. Supp. 628 , 131 Ct.Cl. 677, 680 ; see also. Holliday v. United States, 128 Ct.Cl. 647 .

Bulger Block Coal Co. v. United States

48 F.2d 675 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1931

One is the ease of Eisner v. … Terry v. Eagle Lock Co., 47 Conn. 141 ; State v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 6 Gill (Md.) 363, 386. The opinion in the ease of United States v. Mellon (D.

Norman Doss Unger v. The United States

326 F.2d 996 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 17, 1964

The result of the approved decision of the Correction Board was merely to change the character and not the fact of discharge. Goldstein v. … This contention was not urged in the Correction Board proceedings.

Gunston

529 F.2d 531 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 1, 1975

Piccone v. United States, 186 Ct. Cl. 752 , 407 F. 2d 866 (1969) and cases cited therein. … See, Brundage v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 502 , 504 F. 2d 1382 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 998 (1975).

Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States

9 Cl. Ct. 336 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 15, 1986

In Neely v. … Sioux Tribe v.

Norman M. Giller & Associates

20 Cont. Cas. Fed. 83,785 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1975

The plaintiff has moved to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim on the basis of S & E Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 406 U.S. 1 (1972) and Roscoe-Ajax Construction Co. v. United States, 204 Ct. … See S & E Contractors, Inc. v. United States, supra, and Boscoe-Ajax Construction Co. v. United States, supra. The case is remanded to the trial judge for further appropriate proceedings.”

Mark A. Carroll & Son, Inc. v. United States

29 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,684 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1982

Co. v. United States, 209 Ct. … or legal error in the Board’s decision. * * * It is not the court’s function to supply this deficiency by an independent excursion along the administrative trail. * * Sundstrand Turbo v.

Dillingham Transportation Building, Ltd. v. United States

146 F. Supp. 953 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 16, 1957

In Roche’s Beach, Inc., v. … Universal Oil Products Co. v.

Blair v. United States

9 Cl. Ct. 750 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 11, 1986

The Medical Board at the Center referred the plaintiff’s case to the Central Physical Evaluation Board (CPEB). … Broad Avenue Laundry & Tailoring v. United States, 693 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed Cir.1982); see also Morris Mechanical Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 728 F.2d 497, 498 (Fed.Cir.1984).

Gross v. United States

531 F.2d 482 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1976

A Navy Board of Review affirmed the findings and sentence as modified; the Court of Military Appeals denied a petition for grant of review; the Board for Correction of *74 Naval Records rejected plaintiff’s application for … This general rule of exhaustion does not in itself bar Gross’s suit; he sought review from all military courts and boards that could have reviewed his case.

DeBusk v. United States

132 Ct. Cl. 790 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1955

Bailey v. Richardson, 182 F. 2d 46 . Certainly giving plaintiff an “Unsatisfactory” performance rating is not punishment. If it is not punishment, then the hearing thereon has not subjected plaintiff to jeopardy. … See Keim v. United States, 177 U. S. 290 . Neither section 652 of Title 5 of the United States Code (1952 Ed.) nor the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, supra, contemplates such a restriction upon executive discretion.