Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

Savannah Bank & Trust Co. v. United States

58 F.2d 1068 · United States Court of Claims · May 31, 1932

In Graham & Foster v. … Ed. 335 ; Aiken v. Burnet, 282 U. S. 277 , 51 S. Ct. 148 , 75 L. Ed. 339 ; Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. Burnet, 282 U. S. 283 , 51 S. Ct. 140 , 75 L.

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 .

Strauss v. United States

73 Ct. Cl. 690 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 8, 1932

Williams, Judge, delivered the opinion: The plaintiff, a retired rear admiral of the Navy, was recalled to active duty and served as a member of the submarine board during the period from June 29, 1928‘, to March 30,1929. … This question has heretofore been passed upon by this court in Hugh Rodman v. United States, 70 C. Cls. 751 .

Hayden v. United States

42 Ct. Cl. 436 · United States Court of Claims · May 13, 1907

In other words, in the language of the court in the case of McDonough v. … Co. v. Decker, 80 N. Y., 8 ; N. Y. Land Improvement Co. v. Chapman, 118 N. Y., 288 .)

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.

Exxon Corp. v. United States

547 F.2d 548 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1976

Commissioner v. Brown, 380 U.S. 563, 571 (1965); Steuer v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 282, 294 (1975); Kantor v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 1, 6 (1974). … would be required to capitalize the intangible costs of building those components “ordinarily” possessed of continuing value, tracking the language of subsection (c) (1) of the regulation and the reasoning of Harper Oil Co. v.

Illinois Tri-Seal Products, Inc. v. The United States. John D. Buchanan, Howard Brown and Edward Marcus, D/B/A Tri-Seal Installation Co. v. The United States. John D. Buchanan and Frank Commiso D/B/A Tri-State Installation Co. v. The United States

353 F.2d 216 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 12, 1965

353 F.2d 216 ILLINOIS TRI-SEAL PRODUCTS, INC. v. The UNITED STATES. John D. BUCHANAN, Howard Brown and Edward Marcus, d/b/a Tri-Seal Installation Co. v. The UNITED STATES. John D. … Co. v.

Fortec Constructors v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,702 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1985

In Haney v. … Shupe, Inc. 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.

Grulke v. United States

228 Ct. Cl. 720 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 19, 1981

In Palcic v. … Pence v. Brown, 627 F.2d 872, 874 (8th Cir. 1980); Lundgrin v. Claytor, 619 F.2d 61, 62 (10th Cir. 1980); McCracken v. United States, 502 F.Supp. 561, 573 (D. Conn. 1980); Santos v. Franklin, 493 F.Supp. 847, 851 (E.D.

Palmer-Bee Co. v. United States

142 Ct. Cl. 485 · United States Court of Claims · May 7, 1958

The 1945 loss under the three purchase orders was taken into account, and the Board gave some consideration to the abnormal risk involved in plaintiff’s continuing in the manufacture of radar equipment after V-J Day, but … Plaintiff sought a redetermination in the Tax Court of the Board’s findings of excessive profits.

Whitman v. United States

110 F. Supp. 444 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 3, 1953

Armstrong & Co. v. … president of the Board dismissed the appeal.

Franklin v. United States

29 Ct. Cl. 6 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 18, 1893

(New York Court of Appeals Rep., v. 121, p. 367, headnote.) • In United, States v. … (See also Brown v. United States, 113 U. S., p. 572, and Potts v. United States, 125 U .S., p.173; Magaw v. United States, 16 C. Cls. R., 3 .)

Boylan

546 F.2d 431 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 28, 1976

On plaintiff’s appeal, the Civil Service Commission Board of Appeals and Review affirmed the decision on February 4,1971. “4. … Boyle v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 27 , 515 F. 2d 1397 (1975); Holman v. United States, 181 Ct. Cl. 1 , 383 F. 2d 411 (1967); Finn v. United States, 152 Ct. Cl. 1 (1961).

Bander v. United States

161 Ct. Cl. 475 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1963

Thereafter the hearing board is to furnish recommendations in writing to the unit head or postmaster, and transmit a copy thereof to the aggrieved employee. … Cromwell v. County of Sac, supra, at pp. 352-353 ; Com missioner v. Sunnen, supra, at p. 597 ; Clark v. United States, 150 Ct. Cl. 470, 475 , 281 F. 2d 443, 446 (1960).

Reliance Insurance v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,090 · United States Court of Claims · May 8, 1991

Certification of contractor claims over $50,000 is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an action brought by a contractor in this court or before an agency board of contract appeals. United States v. … Co. v. United States, 19 Cl.Ct. 732 (1990); Donald M. Drake Co. v. United States, 12 Cl.Ct. 518 (1987).