Case law

United States v. Inland Services Corp.

229 Ct. Cl. 513 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 20, 1982

. § 2510 (b)(2)), from a decision of a Board of Contract Appeals. … We heard oral argument but postponed decision to await the court’s hearing and disposition of Brookfield Construction Co. v.

Finley v. United States

230 Ct. Cl. 752 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 5, 1982

The board refused any pecuniary compensation for the admitted error, and its consequence. … Christie v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 333 , 518 F.2d. 584 (1975). Plaintiff here makes no attempt to show the election was secured by duress as defined in Christie .

Southeastern Oil Florida, Inc. v. United States

115 F. Supp. 198 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1953

No evidence has been presented before the Board. … United States v. Blair, 321 U.S. 730, 735 , 64 S.Ct. 820 , 88 L.Ed. 1039 , United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Co., 328 U.S. 234, 240 , 66 S.Ct. 1000 , 90 L.Ed. 1192 .

Edelman v. United States

91 F. Supp. 729 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 10, 1950

Co. v. United States, 67 F. Supp. 385, 386 (1946), aff’d 165 F. (2d) 495, 497 (1948). … Piggly Wiggly Corporation v. United States, 112 C. Cls. 391, 432 , 81 F. Supp. 819 . The amounts claimed here are not of this allowable character in any ascertainable degree.

Comprehensive Designers, Inc. v. United States

545 F.2d 1283 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1976

Major Coat Co. v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 1 , 543 F. 2d 97 (1976). … They note that the Renegotiation Board itself excludes from the definition of subcontract, agreements for office machines, furniture, and equipment, even though the statutory exclusion does not cover these items. 32 C.F.R

Trustees of the Graceland Cemetery Improvement Fund v. United States

515 F.2d 763 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1975

No officer, director, or shareholder of the Cemetery Company has ever served as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Improvement Fund. … Similarly, in Costello v.

Minimo v. United States

230 Ct. Cl. 896 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 9, 1982

The government contends that plaintiffs action cannot be maintained because this court does not have jurisdiction to review adverse determinations of the Board of Veterans Appeals (bva). … Powers v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 553, 555 (1976). We agree.

Scripture Press Foundation v. United States

152 Ct. Cl. 463 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 18, 1961

In Better Business Bureau v. … Vacancies occurring between annual meetings may be filled by the Board. •}• «i» *}♦ «H ARTICLE V. EXECUTIVES’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE Section 1. Membership.

Pacific Maritime Ass'n v. United States

117 F. Supp. 307 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 2, 1953

Whitakee, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Defendant files a motion for a rehearing on the ground that our decision in this case is in conflict with our decision in Luff v. United States, 120 C. Cls. 682 . … The gist of our holding in that case was that where a contractor allows the 90 days to elapse from the findings of the contracting agency without having appealed to the Appeal Board, or without having brought suit in this

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).

Mayman v. United States

70 Ct. Cl. 714 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1930

The contract in question is valid, having been executed on behalf of the defendant through a duly authorized agent of the Federal Board for Vocational Education, and duly approved by the said board. … Behan v. United States, 18 C. Cls. 687 ; United States v. Behan, 110 U. S. 338 . In Behan v.

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.

Atlantic Refining Co. v. United States

72 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1929

Booth, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion: This case, like the following cases, viz, Gulf Refining Co. v. United States, 58 C. Cls. 559 ; Standard Transportation Co. v. United States, 61 C. … S. 81 ; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U. S. 146, 156 .

Peck Iron & Metal Co. v. United States

676 F.2d 634 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1982

In the meantime on August 20, 1971, plaintiff filed its complaint with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("ASBCA” or "Board”) appealing from the adverse decision of the SCO of June 16. … On November 4, 1971, the Board dismissed the appeal because it sounded in breach of contract over which the Board had no jurisdiction, since there was no remedy provided under the contract.

Arcole Midwest Corp. v. United States

113 F. Supp. 278 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 13, 1953

Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U. S. 165, 172 ; United States v. Atlantic Dredging Co., 253 U. S. 1, 11 ; Potashnick v. United States, 123 C. Cls. 197, 218 ; Binghamton Construction Co. v. United States, 123 C. … The appeal was denied by the Corps of Engineers Claims and Appeals Board in its decision No. 33 dated April 4,1949. The Board’s action was affirmed by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, on April 6,1949.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

31 Ct. Cl. 395 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 22, 1896

L., 664), has required this court to allow the rates established and paid by the Board of Public Works to all claimants, under the former District of Columbia Claims Act (1880, June 10, 21 Stat. L., 284). … In the case of Pacific Railroad v. United States ( 158 U. S. R., 118 ) the Supreme Court decided that when the principal of a debt is extinguished by payment the interest is also extinguished.

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. United States

112 F. Supp. 164 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 2, 1953

The Board of Tax Appeals, now the Tax Court, in Appeal of Illinois Merchants Trust Company, 4 B. T. A, 103, and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in C. I. R. v. … The memorandum decision of the Tax Court in Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Commissioner, 1 T. C. M. 863, 1943 P-H T. C.

DYN Logistics Services, Inc. v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,944 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 26, 1984

On September 5, 1984, the Contract Review Board (the Board) approved the contracting officer’s recommendation for a split award which would effect a $770,000 cost savings. … Normand V.

Hayes v. United States

46 Ct. Cl. 282 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 27, 1911

This cavity was filled with earth and then covered with inch boards nailed down, leaving them extending their thickness above the cement floor. … There was no space between the lower surfaces of the boards and the earth filling the trenches, that being the condition at the time the claimant stubbed his toe.

James S. Kirk & Co. v. United States

3 F. Supp. 631 · United States Court of Claims · May 29, 1933

increased cash value of real estate allowed by the Board, and, after the institution of this suit, refunded to plaintiff an additional amount of $15,507.80 on this account for 1917. … Daily Pantagraph, Inc., v. United States, 37 F.(2d) 783 , 68 Ct. Cl. 251 ; Colorado Continental Lumber Co. v. United States, 42 F.(2d) 327 , 70 Ct. Cl. 413 ; New York Lubricating Oil Co. v.