Case law

Construction Service Company v. The United States

357 F.2d 973 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 18, 1966

Co. v. United States, 161 Ct.Cl. 1 , 314 F.2d 501 (1963). … After the denial of its appeal by the Corps of Engineers Claims and Appeals Board, plaintiff sought review by the ASBCA.

Gardner v. United States

156 Ct. Cl. 488 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1962

In Carroll v. United States, 117 Ct. Cl. 53 (1948), the case involved an officer of the Regular Army who served on active duty prior to November 12, 1918. … Williams v. United States, 136 Ct. Cl. 582 (1956).

Ware Knitters, Inc. v. United States

168 F. Supp. 208 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 3, 1958

However, this supervision consisted of but little more than reviewing reports sent him and conversations with employees of the company relative to company business, and attendance on meetings of the Board of Directors. … Kilpatrick v. United States, 52-1 U.S.T.C. par. 9303 (S.D.N.Y.1952); Burwell, Inc., v. United States, D.C.W.D.S.C.1953, 113 F.Supp. 26 ; Berkshire Oil Co., 1947, 9 T.C. 903 ; *211 N. B.

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).

Shook ex rel. Estate of Shook v. United States

61 Ct. Cl. 816 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 8, 1926

By another section the proper accounting •officers are authorized in settling "the accounts of seamen •on board a naval vessel “ sunk or otherwise destroyed,” together with rolls and papers necessary to the exact ascertainment … The Government now insists that the proper rule for finding the date is that stated in Oppenheimer v. Leo Wolfe, 3 Sandf.

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.

Riley

618 F.2d 123 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 28, 1979

To overcome this court’s presumption that the correction board acted in good faith, plaintiff has the burden of proving by "cogent and clearly convincing evidence that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or unlawful … Henneberger v. United States, supra. His release was voluntary and he is not entitled to readjustment pay. Mansell v. United States, supra.

Silvertown Motor Co. v. United States

62 Ct. Cl. 171 · United States Court of Claims · May 3, 1926

While it is true that there might have been a pajunent of dividends without a formal declaration by the board of directors, and there are authorities construing payments made as dividends, although not expressly so made, … In United States v.

Moreno v. United States

70 Ct. Cl. 758 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1930

Isaacs v. United States, 159 U. S. 487 . … accused, we held in United States v.

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.

Grant Oil Tool Company v. The United States

381 F.2d 389 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1967

Our decision in Philadelphia Quartz Co. v. … Francisco Sugar Co. v. Commissioner, 47 F.2d 555 (C.A.2d, 1931).

Walker

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

Martilla v. United States, 118 Ct. Cl. 177, 179-80 (1950). When plaintiff failed to comply with the Commission’s request for information, he failed to prosecute his proceeding before that body. 5 C.F.R. § 772.302 . … And when his case there was dismissed he failed to seek review of that dismissal by the Board of Appeals and Review.

Remaley v. United States

139 F. Supp. 956 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 3, 1956

In Updike v. United States, 132 C. … The board stated that since there appeared to be no material error or injustice in the case a formal review by the board was not warranted. 6.

Chambers v. United States

451 F.2d 1045 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1971

London v. … Cl. 470 (1964) ; Akol v. United States, 166 Ct. Cl. 182 (1964) ; Akol v. United States, 167 Ct. Cl. 99 (1964) ; Lerner v. United States, 168 Ct. Cl. 247 (1964) ; Morris v. United States, 171 Ct.

Arlington Trust Co. v. United States

139 F. Supp. 556 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 6, 1956

On December 26, 1946, Leyde filed an appeal from the Settlement Review Board to the Commission. Extensive hearings were held in February and March 1947 by the Commission’s Findings Appeal Board. … United States v. Leyde & Leyde, D.C., 89 F.Supp. 256 .

Brabson v. United States

95 Ct. Cl. 187 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1941

On December 10, 1989, he submitted the instant claim in the amount of $92.53' ($127.50 less $34.97) to the War Department, and pursuant to the army regulations the claim was referred to a Board of Officers which found, among … The plaintiff was travelling “under orders’’ and the property was being “transported by the proper agent or agency of the United States Government”. , See Regnier v. The United States, 92 C. Cls. 437 .

Mather Construction Co. v. United States

475 F.2d 1152 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 16, 1973

By pretrial agreement, the entire file of Continental Casualty Co., et al. v. … Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co., 9 Cal. 2d 16 , 68 P. 2d 968 -70 (1937); Baker v. Ferrel, 78 Cal. App.2d 528 , 177 P. 2d 973 -74 (Dist. Ct. App. 1947); Graceland v. Peebler, 50 Cal. App. 2d 545 , 123 P. 2d 527 -28 (Dist.

Dorris Motor Car Co. v. United States

60 Ct. Cl. 68 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1924

Not only this, but when the claim of amounts to be allowed was in issue, plaintiff accepted the award of the claims board as approved by the Ordnance Claims Board. … S. 430 ; Willard, Sutherland & Co. v. United States, 262 U. S. 489 . The petition should be dismissed. And it is so ordered. GRAHAM, judge; Hat, judge; DowNey, judge, and Booth, judge, concur.

Steinagel v. United States

231 Ct. Cl. 718 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1982

Plaintiffs request for reconsideration to the then Office of Appeals of the Merit Systems Protection Board (mspb) was denied in August 1979. … The difficulty with the first of these interviews (on September 29, 1977) was that Steinagel was admittedly not given the warnings required by Kalkines v. United States, 200 Ct.

A. P. Williams Iron & Bronze Co. v. United States

90 Ct. Cl. 111 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 4, 1939

The angles were used to keep the seat boards and the step boards in place. They were shown on the drawings and constituted necessary parts of the completed structure. … Davis v. United States, 82 C. Cls. 334 ; Schmoll v. United States, 86 C. Cls. 632 . The reasonable value of the angles is shown to be 10 cents apiece, or $650.