Case law

Martin v. United States

7 Cl. Ct. 287 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1985

See Brown v. United States, 175 Ct.Cl. 343 at 348-49 , 358 F.2d 1002 at 1005 (1966); Arizona Helicopters, Inc. v. United States, 4 Cl.Ct. 662, 665 (1984). … Wilson Corp. v. United States, 4 Cl.Ct. 171, 173 (1983); Parker v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. *289 399, 402 (1983); Ellis v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 141, 143 (1983); Kirby v.

Jones v. United States

1 Ct. Cl. 383 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1865

Rex v. … And it appears by The Attorney General v.

Robert Simmons Construction Co.

27 Cont. Cas. Fed. 80,307 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 28, 1980

to accept the petition pursuant to our order of April 27,1979, directing him not to accept any further filings from plaintiff seeking relief related to claims that this court rejected in Robert Simmons Construction Co. v. … Robert Simmons Construction Co. v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 748 (1973). In that case plaintiff sought review under the Wunderlich Act of a *702 decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

Hodes v. United States

76 F. Supp. 1021 · United States Court of Claims · May 3, 1948

The claim was denied by the New York Ordnance Department on or about August 8, 1946, and by the Appeal Board of the Office of Contract Settlement on May 1, 1947. … The statute forbidding assignment has been applied in, inter alia, United States v. Gillis, 95 U. S. 407 , and Spofford v. Kirk, 97 U. S. 484 .

League of Women Voters of United States v. United States

180 F. Supp. 379 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1960

State boards also submit recommendations. The national board meets some months before the convention and works out a "proposed program." … Bank & Trust Co. v.

Zetz

196 Ct. Cl. 773 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 29, 1971

In its order dated October 29, 1971 granting defendant’s motion and dismissing the petition, the court cites Pine v. United States, 178 Ct. … Cl. 146, 150 , 371 F. 2d 466, 468 (1967), where the court said: “[t]he principles underlying the exhaustion doctrine require the employee to preserve and present to this Board [Board of Appeals and Be view] all the claims

Palmer v. United States

229 Ct. Cl. 650 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 8, 1981

Plaintiffs request that the Appeals Review Board of the Merit Systems Protection Board reopen and reconsider the action was denied. As the basis for her motion, plaintiff advances several contentions. … Jones v. United States, supra.

Henry v. United States

22 Ct. Cl. 75 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1887

And again, in Brown v. The District of Columbia ( 17 C. Cls. … (Clark v. United States, U. S. R,, 543. See, also, Brown's Case, 17 C. Cls. R., 303 ; Little's Case, 19 C. Cls. R., 330; Bohan's Case, 110 U. S.

Burke v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 75 · United States Court of Claims · May 8, 1985

Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 , 219 Ct.Cl. 285 (1979). See also Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1155 (CAFC 1983); Horn v. … A fortiori, the 1979 affirmation of that statutory interpretation by the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records cannot be deemed contrary to law in any respect.

Booth & Co. v. United States

61 Ct. Cl. 805 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 8, 1926

'That a board was appointed without authority of the act to .award compensation can not affect the legal status of the .claim, for the right to compensation is not derived from the *816 act. … D-549, Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. United States, decided by this court on February 15,1926, ante, p. 693, to which reference is made. Gbai-iam, Judge; Hay, Judge; Booth, Judge; and Campbell, Ohief Justice, concur.

Reil v. United States

456 F.2d 777 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1972

However, the Board of Appeals and Review, CSC (hereinafter BAR) sustained both charges upon a Government appeal. … Kowal v. United *548 States, 188 Ct. Cl. 631 , 412 F. 2d 867 (1969) ; Jacobowitz v. United States, 191 Ct. Cl. 444 , 424 F. 2d 555 (1970). In Richardson v.

City of Wichita Falls v. United States

62 Ct. Cl. 239 · United States Court of Claims · May 17, 1926

Vilas v. City of Manila, 220 U. S. 345, 356 ; Metcalf v. Mitchell, 299 Fed. 812 . … United States v. McLean, 95 U. S. 750 ; Rock Island, Arkansas & Louisiana R. R. Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 141 . *245 We do not think it necessary to pursue the discussion further.

Epstein v. United States

357 F.2d 928 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 18, 1966

Harter as president, to the membership committee and to the Board of Directors, in actuality, Harter was an employee of plaintiff, there was no membership committee, and there was no Board of Directors. … Bunker Hill Country Club v. United States, supra. To similar effect the court stated in Shaw v.

DC Andrews & Company v. United States

124 F. Supp. 362 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1954

In Peck v. … Gowanus Storage Co., Inc., v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, D.C., 271 F. 528 .

Stoddart

506 F.2d 1406 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 1, 1974

See Boruski v. United States, 140 Ct. Cl. 1, 7 , 155 F.Supp. 320, 324 (1957) ; Gearinger v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 512 , 412 F.2d 862 (1969) ; MacEntee v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 752 (1974) ; and Riley v. … See and compare, Diamond v. United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 502 , 427 F.2d 1246 (1970) ; and Gearinger v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 512 , 412 F.2d 862 (1969).”

McGinty v. United States

151 Ct. Cl. 399 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1960

Plaintiff appealed to the Board of Appeals and Review, and on July 16, 1954, plaintiff’s dismissal was sustained by that Board. Application was made to the Civil Service Commission to reopen the case. … Edgar v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 9 ; Larsen v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 178 ; Green v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 628 .

Santa Fe Engineers, Inc. v. United States

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

In view of the Armed Services Board for Contract Appeals (ASBCA) extensive and thoughtful discussion of the claim here involved, we have no need to spell out the matter on our own. … ASBCA Nos. 22090, 22194, decided January 17, 1976; See also Astro Space Labs, Inc. v. United States, 200 Ct.Cl. 282 , 470 F.2d 1003 (1972); Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v.

George Bennett, an Individual D/B/A George Bennett Construction Company v. The United States

371 F.2d 859 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1967

In the prosecution of this claim, originally heard and denied by the Corps of *861 Engineers Claims and Appeals Board (hereinafter the “Board”), both parties, without formal objection, have proceeded to litigate the issues … in a de novo proceeding, each introducing evidence in this court not previously presented before the Board.

Straga v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,470 · United States Court of Claims · May 1, 1985

You may appeal this decision to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. * * * In lieu of appealing to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, you may bring an action directly in the US Claims Court within 12 months … It is not our desire to proceed with an appeal to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or the U.S.

P. Dougherty Co. v. United States

83 F. Supp. 688 · United States Court of Claims · May 2, 1949

Regis Paper Company v. United States, 110 C. Cls. 271 , 275-6, certiorari denied 335 U. … In the case of Vansant v. United States, 75 C.