Case law

E. J. Albrecht Co. v. United States

174 F. Supp. 942 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 13, 1959

Since we think it is so supported, both on the record before the contracting officer and the board, and on the record before this court, it is not necessary to discuss the question mooted in Volentine and Littleton v. … These claims were denied by the Contracting Officer and plaintiff duly appealed to the Corps of Engineers Claims and Appeals Board. The Board, after a hearing, denied plaintiff’s claim on April 13,1954.

Douglas v. United States

2 Ct. Cl. 347 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1866

The rule as to the waiver of a forfeiture is as applicable to the government as to other contractors, and has been before this recognized and applied in this court, (Lester v. Reddington’s case, 1 C. Cls. R., p. 52.) … the decision of a third person, reciprocally obligatory upon both the parties, which are always to be upheld as an agreement that wagons to be manufactured shall be examined and approved by a certain inspector, (Albert Brown

Metzger, Shadyac & Schwarz v. United States

34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,351 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1987

Metz-ger was successful and the DOI Board of Contract Appeals on June 29,1979 awarded ECI $70,000.00, plus interest. … Co. v. Home Water Supply Co., 226 U.S. 220, 230 , 33 S.Ct. 32, 35 , 57 L.Ed. 195 (1912); Robo Wash, Inc. v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 693, 697 (1980); *606 Orchards v.

Powell v. United States

100 Ct. Cl. 298 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1943

He was paid the allowances of an officer without dependents for all of the period of his service, except the period during which he was assigned to duty on board the U. S. S. Monocacy. … Mumma v. United States, 99 C. Cls. 261.

Woodward v. United States

109 F. Supp. 414 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 13, 1953

Andrews v. Stinson, 254 Ill. 111, 123-4 ; 98 N. E. 222 . *84 No new partnership was formed between Grinnell F. Oliver and the estate of James Hugh Oliver after June 14, 1944. On July 27,1944, Grinnell F. … In the letter of May 14, 1946, the Navy Price Adjustment Board stated: If you are still willing to enter into such agreement please execute and return three copies thereof (together with appropriate resolution of your Board

Austell v. United States

7 Ct. Cl. 599 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1871

Brown, assistant quartermaster in charge of military railroad transportation, and by him, with other cotton coming into his hands, shipped to Nashville, Tennessee, and there turned over to Captain C. A. … “Whereas Alfred Austell, V. K. Stephenson, T. W. Evans, and E. W.

Horn v. United States

177 F. Supp. 438 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 7, 1959

“Proceedings before the Civil Service Commission and its regional agencies need not be cast in the mold of court proceedings”, Atkinson v. United States, 144 C. Cls. 585 . In Deviny v. … On January 18,1955, the Board of Appeals and Review rejected plaintiff’s request for a hearing, and assured plaintiff that it would give careful consideration to the facts in the case.

Murphy

650 F.2d 286 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 29, 1980

Under date of March 13, 1979, the new Merit Systems Protection Board ruled that the case was not within its jurisdiction. This suit was filed April 23, 1979. … Gaskins v. United States, 221 Ct. Cl. 918 (1979). Under the old law there can be no question but that a plaintiff here has to have a claim for money. Otherwise, we lack jurisdiction. United States v.

Crisan

650 F.2d 286 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 28, 1980

Batchelor v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 180 , cert. denied, 381 U.S. 870 (1965); Chollar v. United States, 130 Ct. Cl. 338 , 126 F. Supp. 448 (1954). … Since Board of Regents v.

Silverton v. United States

118 Ct. Cl. 232 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 9, 1951

The Board shall prescribe regulations to effectuate the objectives of this Act to aid veterans to establish and maintain their own small business, professional, or agricultural enterprises, by affording veterans suitable … Co. v. United States, 114 C. Cls. 355, 370 ; Schneiderman, et al. v. United States, 117 C. Cls. 715 .

Erickson v. United States

105 F. Supp. 1020 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1952

On March 8,1938, plaintiff was employed by the National Labor Relations Board as a Trial Examiner on a “when as ■employed” basis. … Winfree v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, 227 U. S. 296, 302 . *172 Plaintiff’s petition will therefore be dismissed and judgment entered in favor of the defendant. It is so ordered.

Maliner v. United States

362 F.2d 281 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 10, 1966

Tibbals v. … In Braunstein v.

Larkin v. United States

5 Ct. Cl. 526 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1869

Cranworth, in the case of Ware v. Egmont, 3 Myl. and Keen, 719, and repeated in Montifiore v. Brown, 7 H. of Lords, ca. 241,269, and made the text of Mr.

Belt v. United States

23 Ct. Cl. 317 · United States Court of Claims · May 28, 1888

(Marshall et al. v. The United States, 21 C. Cls. R., p. 307.) If the Treasury officers erred, still the claimant is in no better position. … In United States v.

Newcomber v. United States

51 Ct. Cl. 408 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1916

Co. v. United States, 237 U. S., 19, 24 . In United States v. Emery, 237 U. S., 28 , the question of jurisdiction was again presented. … Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U. S., 124, 137 , which involved a computation based upon fixed data.

Vinegar Hill Zinc Co. v. United States

149 Ct. Cl. 494 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1960

ARTICLE V. … The appeal was heard by a Board of Review. The Board determined that all of the causes *513 of delay were beyond the control of the plaintiff.

Ready-Mix Concrete Company v. United States

158 F. Supp. 571 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 15, 1958

Johnstown Coal and Coke Co. v. United States, 66 Ct.Cl. 616 ; Gemsco, Inc. v. United States, 115 Ct.Cl. 209 . … The Board of Contract Appeals made its decision on July 25, 1946.

Mitchelle v. United States

451 F.2d 1395 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 10, 1971

Pridemark, Inc. v. Commissioner, 345 F. 2d 35 , 41 (4th Cir. 1965). … When it was learned on or about February 17, 1961, that Namco could not qualify to do business in Australia because of its name, the 'board of directors of the corporation discussed the problem of what should be done.

Samuel Heath Co. v. United States

2 F. Supp. 637 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 13, 1933

The commissioner had the right to inquire into the reasonableness of the amount taken as deductions for salaries, whether under contracts entered into between the plaintiff and its officers, or by allowance fixed by the board … Meyer Hecht v. United States, 54 F.(2d) 968 , 73 Ct. Cl. 579 . The case of Gray & Company v. United States, 35 F.(2d) 968 , 68 Ct. Cl. 480, is relied upon by the plaintiff to maintain its recovery.

Dewsbury v. United States

146 F. Supp. 467 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 5, 1956

Speaking through Chief Justice Taney in Brown v. … And in Barrett v. Van Pelt, 268 U. S. 85, 90 , we applied the rule laid down in People v. Utica Ins.