Case law

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.

Otis Elevator Co. v. United States

36 F. Supp. 328 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 6, 1941

Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U. S. 281 . … Talcott v. United States, 23 F. (2d) 897, and cases there cited. Champ Spring Co. v. United States, 47 F. (2d) 1.

Schmidt v. United States

144 Ct. Cl. 484 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 14, 1959

In the case of Mimmack v. United States, 97 U. … Bennett v. United States, 19 C. Cls. 379 ; Allderdice v. United States, 19 C. Cls. 511 .

James F. McDonald as of the Estate of George C. McDonald v. The United States

436 F.2d 477 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1971

Cher-nick v. United States, 372 F.2d 492 , 178 Ct.Cl. 498 (1967), and cases cited; Rug-giero v. United States, 420 F.2d 709 , 190 Ct.Cl. 327 (1970). … For the same reasons, his charge that the Board action was arbitrary and capricious must also be rejected.' In Paroczay v.

Kelly v. United States

133 Ct. Cl. 571 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1956

Love v. United States, 119 C. Cls. 486 . *579 The First U. S. … During the period from May 1, 1952, when plaintiff was separated from his position as rating specialist (legal), to July 14, 1952, the Boston regional office retained Emlyn V.

Martinez v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 559 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1989

Although the Claims Court typically reviews a military correction board decision in a non-disability pay case based on the record developed before the board, Long v. … Bowling 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.”

Parish v. United States

98 F. Supp. 347 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 9, 1951

Wartime construction was largely regulated by the War Production Board, and the Government agencies concerned interpreted WPB Construction Conservation Order L-41, as amended, to require authorization by that board before … Thomas Earle & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 90 Ct.Cl. 308 .

Croggon v. United States

91 Ct. Cl. 35 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 4, 1940

The blank forms and procedure thereunder were approved and accepted by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, and the board ordered such forms and procedure to be printed and distributed to the newly created banks. … Snitkin v. United States, 265 Fed. 489 ; Jackson v. Cravens, 238 Fed. 117 .

Stephens

650 F.2d 285 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 25, 1980

Nevertheless he did not reach the selection zone and would not have been selected even if the original board had considered his complete record. The case is thus comparable to Doyle v. United States, 220 Ct. … Unlike Doyle, supra, we do not have the issue of active duty pay for plaintiff during the period between the action of the first board and that of the supplemental board.

Universal Match Corp. v. United States

161 Ct. Cl. 418 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1963

The Board of Contract Appeals affirmed on the same ground. … Supp. 179, 185 (1953) ; Chahroudi v. United States, 124 Ct. Cl. 792, 797-98 (1953) ; Houston Beady-Cut House Co. v. United States, 119 Ct. Cl. 120, 187-88 , 96 F.

Holbrook v. United States

229 Ct. Cl. 604 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 17, 1981

This court has long held that resort to permissive administrative procedures such as petition to a correction board does not toll the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Brundage v. United States, 205 Ct. … Supp. 445 (1959), for the proposition that a new cause of action arises from the arbitrary and capricious failure of a correction board to correct a serviceman’s date of discharge. As we noted in Brownfield v.

Palluconi v. United States

143 F. Supp. 572 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1956

Cls. 801 , and MacFarlane v. United States, 134 C. Cls. 755 . … Lemly v. United States, 109 C. Cls. 760 .

Barbee v. United States

14 Cl. Ct. 387 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 3, 1988

See e.g., Carruth v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 422 , 627 F.2d 1068, 1081 ; Walton v. United States, 213 Ct.Cl. 755 (1977) (per curiam). … Most such claims are normally brought before the Merit Systems Protection Board, but plaintiff, an excepted service employee, came before this court because the Merit System Protection Board had no jurisdiction over plaintiff

LDG Timber Enterprises, Inc. v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,681 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 3, 1985

See, e.g., Skelly & Loy v. United States, 685 F.2d 414 , 231 Ct.Cl. 370 (1982); W.M. Schlosser Co. Inc. v. United States, 705 F.2d 1336 (Fed.Cir.1983); and Paul E. Lehman, Inc. v. … Similarly, in Curley, Inc. v.

Farnham v. United States

49 Ct. Cl. 19 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1913

Morse Arms Co. v. United States, 16 C. Cls., 296 ; Harvey Steel Co. v. United States, 38 C. Cls., 681 ; Societe Anon. v. United States, 224 U. S., 309 ; Knapp v. United States, 46 C. Cls., 601 ; Beach v. … Walker on Patents, secs. 176, 181, 182, 186, 339, and 349; Case v. Brown, 2 Wall., 320 ; Derby v. Thompson, 146 U. S., 476, 482 ; Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U. S., 47 ; McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.