Case law

Whiteside v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 564 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1992

He was called to testify regarding minutes of two General Freights’ Board of Directors’ meetings he signed as Secretary of the meetings. … In White v.

Skibsaktieselskapet Siljestad v. United States

180 F. Supp. 957 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 2, 1960

Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 280 U.S. 320 ; Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. v. United States, 129 C. Cls. 455 . … Swift and Co. v. United States, 136 C. Cls. 394, 399-400 . The parties have cited numerous decisions involving situations which they urge, are analogous to the instant situation.

McAleese

578 F.2d 1390 · United States Court of Claims · May 4, 1978

Such a recommendation was made at the end of that period, and was approved by the Performance Rating Board and the Commanding Officer. … United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (1969). 2.

N. Y. Rayon Importing Co. v. United States

64 F. Supp. 684 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 4, 1946

The issues are somewhat confused by the dissolution and reorganization of corporations, stock transfers and board meetings, as well as the numerous parties to the various transactions. … The Supreme Court of New York in the case of Interstate Trucking Co. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., N. Y. L.

Reid v. United States

18 Ct. Cl. 625 · United States Court of Claims · May 28, 1883

It makes the same distinction-which the Supreme Court made in Wilke v. … (Bowen v. United States, 100 U. S. R., 508 .)

Cartas v. United States

48 Ct. Cl. 161 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 10, 1913

In Boughton v. United States ( 12 C. Cls. … In Pharis v. United States ( 16 C. Cls.

Conley

566 F.2d 1189 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 8, 1977

The Board of Appeals and Review (BAR) rendered its final decision denying plaintiffs appeal on January 27, 1967; consequently, plaintiffs cause of action arose, at the latest, on that date. … Conley v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 561 *830 (1976).

Bell v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 73 · United States Court of Claims · May 8, 1991

It relies on Akins v. … Schultz v. United States Navy, 810 F.2d 1133 (Fed.Cir. 1987); Covington v. Department of Health and Human Services, 750 F.2d 937 (Fed.Cir. 1984); Scharf v.

J. B. McCrary Co. v. United States

84 F. Supp. 368 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 6, 1949

This court has reiterated and applied this principle in the following cases: Gothwaite v. United States, 102 C.Cl. 400; Barbour & Sons v. United States, 63 F.Supp. 348 , 104 C.Cl. 360; Froemming Bros., Inc., v. … United States, 70 F.Supp. 126 , 108 C.Cl. 193, 212; Clemmer Construction Co. v. United States, 71 F.Supp. 917 , 108 C.Cl. 718; Alger-Rau, Inc., v.

Ellard G. Conn and Victor Conn, Doing Business as Conn Structors, and Cheshire National Bank of Keene, New Hampshire v. The United States

366 F.2d 1019 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 14, 1966

The corollary of a finding of board jurisdiction in respect to a particular contract dispute is that the statute of limitations for the institution of suit thereon cannot commence to run until final board action occurs. … Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 368 F.2d 847 , decided this day; Austin Eng’r Co. v. United States, 88 Ct.Cl. 559, 563-564 (1939); Holton, Seelye & Co. v.

C. E. Hooper, Inc. v. United States

539 F.2d 1276 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 9, 1976

See Kingsbury Investments, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, and W. L. Mead, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra. … The minutes of the December 16, 1965 board of directors meeting indicates some discussion of McEwen’s report, but does not indicate that any particular action was taken thereon by the board.

Z.A.N. Co. v. United States

230 Ct. Cl. 847 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 23, 1982

The motion relies on Daehn v. United States, 225 Ct. Cl. 652 (1980); Jenkins v. United States, 224 Ct. Cl. 710 (1980); and Miracle Contractors, Inc. *848 v. United States, 229 Ct. … It is too late for plaintiff to appeal to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

Lavasseur

189 Ct. Cl. 565 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 3, 1969

Plaintiff appealed to the Board of Appeals and Review and on April 27, 1965, ¡the Board affirmed the decision of the Regional Office. … See Hutton v. United States, 154 Ct. Cl. 34 (1961); Monday v. United States, 146 Ct. Cl. 6 (1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 965 (1960); Henry v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 362 , 153 F. Supp. 285 (1957); McDougall v.

Abadilla v. United States

230 Ct. Cl. 838 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 23, 1982

These are eight appeals from orders of the Merit Systems Protection Board ( mspb ). Petitioners are former civilian employees of the United States Government. … A former claim, Guevara v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 595 , was similar except that it was a pre-reform Act case. Under date of November 13, 1981, we ordered the claim dismissed, reasoning that Mr.

Hollins v. United States

229 Ct. Cl. 724 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 23, 1981

Plaintiff contends that the decision of the Board for the Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) denying this relief was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of administrative discretion. … See, Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 285 , 594 F. 2d 804 (1979).

Luria Brothers & Company, Inc. v. The United States

369 F.2d 701 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 16, 1966

The Board relied on the Dockery Act, as amended, 31 U.S.C. § 74 , and our decision in Brooks-Callaway Co. v. United States, 97 Ct.Cl. 689, 704 (1943), in determining that it no longer had jurisdiction over these claims. … Since neither party has raised the issue, we express no opinion on the correctness of this determination by the Board in light of the subsequent Supreme Court decision in United States v.

National Fireproofing Corp. v. United States

99 Ct. Cl. 608 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 7, 1943

This telegram was referred to the National Labor Board, and on August 17, 1933 the Secretary of this Board wrote plaintiff quoting the telegram and asking to be advised of the present status of the matter ánd what the company … Each of these cases must be decided on its own facts, but see McCloskey v. United States, No. 44003, 98 C. Cls. 90 . We do not think that Dravo v. United States, 93 C. Cls. 745 , is in conflict herewith.

Hansen

566 F.2d 1189 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 8, 1977

When this appeal was denied, plaintiff appealed to the CSC Board of Appeals and Review ('BAR’). … United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U. S. 33, 36-37 (1952); Grover v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 337, 345-47 (1973); Haynes v. United States, 190 Ct. Cl. 9, 12-13 , 418 F. 2d 1380, 1382-83 (1969).

Attinello v. United States

197 Ct. Cl. 1040 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 13, 1972

I, accordingly, conclude that claimant has no legal Claim against the United States, but that under the standards of Burkhardt v. … Under the standards of Burkhardt v. United States, supra, claimant does have an equitable claim against the United States in the sum of $100,000.

Reliance Insurance v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,892 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 27, 1990

This statement has been taken out of context, however, since the Board in W. … This was the essence of the holding by the YA Board of Contract Appeals in the W Harley Miller case discussed above.