Case law

Baker v. United States

218 Ct. Cl. 602 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 13, 1978

Browne, filed December 23, 1977, pursuant to Rule 134(h), having been submitted to the court on the briefs and oral argument of counsel. … OPINION OF TRIAL JUDGE BROWNE, Trial Judge: This action has been brought jointly by 14 plaintiffs.

GAF Corp. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,803 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 12, 1990

Johns-Manville Corp. v. … , magnesia (85 percent) pipe coverings and blocks, asbestos boards, asbestos molded boards, asbestos felt base, and asbestos cement.

Shapley

214 Ct. Cl. 783 · United States Court of Claims · May 27, 1977

"Plaintiffs appeal to the Civil Service Commission was denied on October 16, 1975, and his request for reopening and reconsideration of the decision was denied by the Appeals Review Board on April 5, 1976. … McCormack v. United States, 209 Ct.Cl. 778 , 779 (1976); Leone v. United States, supra, 204 Ct.Cl. at 340 . As the court stated in Christie v.

Hackett v. United States

125 Ct. Cl. 831 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 13, 1953

V) § 652 (b) (1). … V), §§ 2001-2007.

Opalack v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 361 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 21, 1984

The Act would permit plaintiffs to appeal that second contracting officer’s decision to the agency’s board of contract appeals, or to proceed directly in this court. 2 Because the record was silent on whether or not plaintiffs … Tester Corp. v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 368 ; 1 Cl.Ct. 370 (1982). . Which have now been disposed of in the court’s decision of May 15, 1984.

Bert Crosswhite and Virginia Crosswhite v. The United States

369 F.2d 989 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 16, 1966

See also Lazarus v. United States, 172 F.Supp. 421 , 145 Ct.Cl. 541 (1959); McConkey v. United States, 130 F.Supp 621, 131 Ct.Cl. 690 (1955); Di Lisio v. Vidal, 233 F.2d 909 (10th Cir. 1956). … See Browne v. United States, 356 F.2d 546 , 174 Ct.Cl. — (1966). The frequency and continuity of sales is yet another factor which thé courts have considered. Lazarus, supra, 172 F.Supp. at 426 , 145 Ct.Cl. at 548-549 .

Mac Callum v. United States

142 F. Supp. 925 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1956

The plaintiff was employed in the Munitions Board, Office of the Secretary of Defense, as an Industrial Specialist (Controls Methods), in position No. 1600-1-156-12, Munitions Board, Office of Priorities and Controls, Grade … See Ciaffone v. United States, 126 C. Cls. 532, 537 . The defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition is granted, and the petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Frederick D. Williams v. The United States

434 F.2d 1346 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 11, 1970

We stated in Friedman v. United States, 310 F.2d 381, 387 , 159 Ct.Cl. 1, 11 (1962) cert. denied, Lipp v. … Mendelson v. Macy, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 43 , 356 F.2d 796 (1966). See also Nelms v. United States, 167 Ct.Cl. 423 (1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 943 , 85 S.Ct. 1781 , 14 L.Ed.2d 706 (1965); Powers v.

Long v. United States

92 Ct. Cl. 469 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 3, 1941

Long, Chaplain Corps, United States Navy, upon the retired list of the Navy with the retired pay and allowances of that rank: Provided, That a duly constituted naval retiring board finds that the said Christopher S. … Exactly similar questions were presented to the court in the case of Sweeney v. The United States, 82 C. Cls. 640 , and Ralston v. The United States, 91 C. Cls. 91 .

Wright & Kremers, Inc. v. United States

3 F. Supp. 616 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1933

A. 38, affirmed United States v. Carroll Chain Co. (D. C.) 8 F.(2d) 529 ; Pennsylvania Chocolate Co. v. Lewellyn (D. C.) 27 F.(2d) 762 ; Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Lucas (D. … In Swift & Co. v. United States, 38 F.(2d) 365 , 69 Ct.

Dashiell

652 F.2d 69 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 27, 1981

The Appeals Review Board of the Civil Service Commission refused to reopen and reconsider the FEAA decision. In this court, as before FEAA, plaintiff alleges that his removal was arbitrary and capricious. … See, eg., Singer Co. v. United States, 215 Ct.Cl. 281, 321 , 568 F.2d 695, 717-18 (1977).

Acme Coal Co. v. United States

44 F.2d 95 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1930

United States v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 422 , 46 S. Ct. 131 , 70 L. Ed. 347 ; Rouss v. Bowers (C. C. A.) 30 F.(2d) 628 ; American National Co., Rec., v. United States, 274 U. S. 99 , 47 S. Ct. 520 , 71 L. Ed. 946 . … Brown et al., 10 B. T. A. 1122; Lehigh Valley Coal Sales Co., 15 B. T. A. 1401.

Merck & Co. v. United States

24 Cl. Ct. 73 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 10, 1991

Paul Island v. United States, 480 F.2d 831, 838 , 202 Ct.Cl. 182 (1973). . See Bray v. United States, 785 F.2d 989, 992 (Fed.Cir.1986). . Flora v. … Young & Rubicam, Inc. v.

Drakes Bay Land Co. v. United States

459 F.2d 504 · United States Court of Claims · May 12, 1972

The change in position of the Board followed a recall election in which a Board member opposing enlargement of the Seashore was removed from office, being succeeded by an advocate thereof. … See Highland Park, Inc. v. United States, 142 Ct. Cl. 269, 274 , 161 F. Supp. 597, 600 (1958); United States v. Iriarte, 166 F. 2d 800, 804 (1st Cir.1948), ce rt. denied, 335 U.S. 816 ; United States v.

Poppos v. Department of the Navy

231 Ct. Cl. 892 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 20, 1982

He took a statutory appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board ( mspb), had an evidentiary hearing, and on receipt of an unfavorable initial decision, appealed it to the board, which upheld that decision under date of December … We have recently dealt with such partisan political removals in Awtry v.

McDonald v. United States

48 Ct. Cl. 123 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 3, 1913

In Gearing v. United States ( 46 C. … In United States v. Thomas ( 195 U.

Embrey v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,692 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 17, 1989

Schwabenbauer v. Board of Educ., 667 F.2d 305 , 313-14 (2d Cir.1981). Mere denials or conclusory statements, however, are not sufficient to create an evidentiary conflict. Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. … The first allegation 6 regarding the contracting officer’s complaint to the Oklahoma Board of Realtors is not relevant. The contracting officer complained to the state board after contract termination.

Varkell v. United States

334 F.2d 653 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 17, 1964

Corp. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 229 , 324 F. 2d 509 (1963); American Auto Parts Co., Inc. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 23 (1963); Montreal Securities, Inc. v. United States, 165 Ct. … Silverton, 200 F. 2d 824, 828 (C.A. 1, 1952); Standard Magnesium Corp. v. United States, 241 F. 2d 677, 679 (C.A. 10, 1957)). Krupp v.

American Bronze Powder Manufacturing Co. v. United States

67 Ct. Cl. 564 · United States Court of Claims · May 6, 1929

The question here arising has been directly passed upon in the case of United States v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 422 . … S. 700 ), and Child and Fullerton v. United States, 63 C. Cls. 356 .

AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,494 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1986

Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270, 273-74 , 77 S.Ct. 269, 271-72 , 1 L.Ed.2d 306 (1957). The statute of limitations cannot be waived, Cosmic Construction Co. v. … See also Design and Production Inc. v. United States, 10 Cl.Ct. 80 at 81 (1986).