Case law

Panama Power & Light Co. v. United States

150 Ct. Cl. 290 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 8, 1960

Olympia Shipping Corp. v. United States, 71 Ct. … considered by the Contract Adjustment Board.

Alaska-Pacific Consolidated Mining Co. v. United States

120 Ct. Cl. 307 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 9, 1951

substance, that plaintiff, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, with principal office in Seattle, owned a certain gold mine in the Territory of Alaska; that on October 8, 1942, the War Production Board … The question presented in this case is the same as that considered by this court in the case of Oro Fino Consolidated Mines, Inc. v. United States, 118 C. Cls. 18 .

Olsen v. United States

122 Ct. Cl. 106 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 8, 1952

See Kilgore, et al. v. United States, 121 C. Cls. 340 , John J. Harte Co. v. United States, 117 C. Cls. 309 ; Stafford v. United States, 109 C. Cls. 479 . … In United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Co., 328 U.

Norcoast Constructors, Inc. v. United States

477 F.2d 929 · United States Court of Claims · May 11, 1973

'We suspended for the Board to determine quantum if the parties did not agree. -They did not, and the Board awarded $40,000. This, it found, was the “salvage value” of the tank. … Once *698 this is clearly seen, no rational attack on the Board’s award on the ground of insufficiency can be made on the record before us. Bruce Constr. Corp. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 97 , 324 F.2d 516 (1963).

Irby Construction Co. v. United States

154 Ct. Cl. 342 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 7, 1961

McHale Co. v. United States, 151 F. Supp. 115 (N.D. … City Chevrolet Co. v.

Highland Park, Inc. v. United States

161 F. Supp. 597 · United States Court of Claims · May 7, 1958

As the Supreme Court said in Causby v. … Portsmouth Harbor, Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327 , 43 S.Ct. 135 , 67 L.Ed. 287 ; Gerlach Live Stock Co. v.

Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co. v. United States

37 F.2d 977 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 17, 1930

Tucker v. Alexander, 275 U. S. 228 , 48 S. Ct. 45, 46 , 72 L. Ed. 253 ; Red Wing Malting Co. v. Willcuts (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 626 , 49 A. L. R. 45,9; Feather River Lumber Co. v. United States, 66 Ct. … in the decision of the board in the Union Metal Mfg.

Nichols & Co. v. United States

156 Ct. Cl. 358 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1962

Go wit V. … Count V 42.

Baldwin v. United States

175 Ct. Cl. 264 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 15, 1966

Smith v. United States, 151 Ct. Cl. 205 (1960). … Colbath v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 414 , 341 F. 2d 626 (1965). Harris v. United States, 153 Ct. Cl. 425 (1961).

Nolde v. United States

64 Ct. Cl. 204 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 7, 1927

The resolution of the board declaring this dividend stated that it was payable out of the surplus representing undistributed profits of the years prior to March 1, 1913. … It was decided in the case of Edwards v. Douglas, 269 U.

Laughary v. United States

228 Ct. Cl. 739 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 2, 1981

See Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 285, 310 , 594 F.2d 804, 818 (1979). … See Hary v. United States, 223 Ct.

Burkholder

119 F. Supp. 743 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1954

defendant’s motion is granted and the petition dismissed in an opinion per curiam, ás.follows: Plaintiff sues “to recover damages for injuries' sustained” to his nervous system from'“direct enemy action” while employed on board … court has exclusive jurisdiction, Levine v. United States, 112 C. Cls. 187 , cert. den. 336 U. S. 936 . Or it may be plaintiff is suing in -.tort.. If. so, we have no original jurisdiction.

Patterson v. United States

459 F.2d 487 · United States Court of Claims · May 12, 1972

Mayo Brown, who was a member of the John L. King organization for a long time, as a nonresident consultant and advisor in farm management. Mr. Brown grew up on a farm. … Mayo Brown, who was a member of the John L. King organization for a long time, as a nonresident consultant and advisor in farm management. Mr. Brown grew up on a farm.

Allied Contractors, Inc. v. The United States

381 F.2d 995 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1967

It consisted of wood boards driven alongside of each other, with % to 14-inch spaces between the boards, permitting water and silt to penetrate. … Co. v.

Gardner Displays Co. v. United States

171 Ct. Cl. 497 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1965

United States v. Blair, 321 U.S. 730 (1944) says (to the defendant) he cannot, while Metropolitan Paving Co. v. United States, 163 Ct. … Thus the Board decision was purely on a question of law and offers no barrier of finality under the disputes clause. Time and events have somewhat eroded the much-maligned doctrine of United States v.

General Aniline & Film Corporation v. The United States

360 F.2d 647 · United States Court of Claims · May 13, 1966

Only the Tax Court was given jurisdiction to review the action of the Board (or of its successor, the Administrator of General Services). … LeTourneau, Inc. v. Administrator of General Services, 96 U.S. App.D.C. 326, 226 F.2d 48 (1955), and cases there cited. Eversharp, Inc. v. United States, 125 F.Supp. 244 , 129 Ct.Cl. 772 (1954), and Putnam Tool Co. v.

Southern Natural Gas Company v. The United States

412 F.2d 1222 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1969

The Board’s decision was affirmed on March 18, 1931, in Central Real Estate Co. v. … Co. v.

Taylor v. United States

192 Ct. Cl. 581 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 12, 1970

Smith v. United States, 168 Ct. Cl. 545, 553 (1964); Farrar v. United States, 173 Ct. Cl. 1008, 1034 , 358 F. 2d 965 (1965); Hoppock v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 1147, 1167 (1966). 48. … Smith v. United States, supra; Farrar v. United States, supra; Hoppock v. United States, supra.

Parish v. United States

57 Ct. Cl. 529 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 6, 1922

An award in the amount of $158,525.59 was made by the board of appraisers appointed by the President of the United States, under the statute in such cases made and provided. … Natron Soda Co. v. United States, 54 C. Cls. 169 ; 257 U. S. 138 ; Miller v. United States, 11 Wall. 268 ; Hamilton v. Dillin, 21 Wall. 73 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 ; C. B. & Q. Ry. v.

Ross Engineering Co. v. United States

120 F. Supp. 188 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1954

In Fogarty v. United States, 340 U. … This decision was signed by all three members of the board on changes, including plaintiff’s representative.