Case law

John L. Alcock & Co. v. United States

61 Ct. Cl. 312 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 7, 1925

At this time it had a large quantity of lumber either in its possession or on board the cars for shipment. … Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 502 ; Roxford Knitting Co. v. Moore & Tierney, 265 Fed. 177 .

McKee v. United States

1 Ct. Cl. 336 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1865

In the case of William Clark v. … And in the case of Jones & Brown v. The United States, (February 14, 1866,) we held that in this court a claimant is not a competent witness in his own behalf in an action brought against the United States.

Skaw v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 795 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 6, 1983

The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) on April 19,1982, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the November 13, 1981, decision (IBLA 82-231). … Ickes v. Underwood, 141 F.2d 546 .

Winstar Corp. v. United States

25 Cl. Ct. 541 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 21, 1992

Co. v. … Bank v.

Greenway v. United States

175 Ct. Cl. 350 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 15, 1966

Brownell v. United States, 164 Ct. Cl. 406 (1964); Engelhardt *358 v. United States, 125 Ct. … Knotts v. United States, supra, p. 492.

Herwig v. United States

105 F. Supp. 384 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 3, 1952

In Goldsmith v. … Boeing v. United States, supra; Reynolds v.

Slavitt v. United States

155 Ct. Cl. 606 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 6, 1961

Consequently neither the Department of the Navy nor the Civil Service Commission’s Board of Appeals and Review were in any way arbitrary or capricious in their actions regarding plaintiff in this respect. … Knotts v. United States, 128 Ct. Cl. 489 ; Librach & Cutler v. United States, 147 Ct. Cl. 605 .

Francis D. Houston v. The United States

297 F.2d 838 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1962

The Board of Appeals and Review affirmed on appeal without opinion. … Kenny v. United States, 145 F.Supp. 898 , 134 Ct.Cl. 442 , cert. denied 352 U.S. 893 , 77 S.Ct. 131 , 1 L.Ed.2d 86 ; Armand v. United States, 136 Ct.Cl. 339 ; Adams v. United States, 137 Ct.Cl. 52 ; Thompson v.

Grand River Dam Authority v. United States

175 F. Supp. 153 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1959

It was so *736 held in Oklahoma v. Atkinson Co., supra. It had been so held long before in United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690 . … United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., supra, p. 703; New Jersey v. Sargent, 269 U.S. 328, 337 ; Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558, 569 ; United States v. Appalachian Power Co., supra.

J. C. Pitman & Sons, Inc. v. The United States

317 F.2d 366 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1963

In Merritt v. … United States, 42 F.Supp. 292 , 95 Ct.Cl. 415 (1942); Royal Indemnity Co. v. Board of Education, 137 F.Supp. 890 (M.B.N.C.1956). 8 .

Barberi v. United States

144 Ct. Cl. 573 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 14, 1959

The Board of Appeals and Review affirmed. 1. No arbitrary action is shown. … This is illustrated by the case of Hilton v. Sullivan, 334 U. S. 323 , in which predominant weight was given to “military preference”, and none to “length of service.”

Penberthy Electromelt International Inc. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,887 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 5, 1986

United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 , 105 S.Ct. 465, 468 , 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984); Carstens v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 742 F.2d 1546, 1560 (D.C.Cir. 1984); Sangemino v. … See, e.g., Bell Aircraft Corp. v.

American Processing and Sales Company v. The United States

371 F.2d 842 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1967

Warren Corp. v. United States, 141 F.Supp. 935 , 135 Ct. Cl. 305 (1956); Gilbert v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 248 F.2d 399 (2 Cir. 1957) and 262 F.2d 512 (1959); and Byerlite Corp. v. … Warren Corp. v. United States, supra.

Johnson v. United States

29 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 4, 1893

. $250.00 1 "brown horse. 150. 00 2 three-year-old mares, $75 each. 150.00 1 roan mare. 100.00 1 yellow mare. 125.00 26 range cows and calves, $50 . 1, 300.00 4 yoke of work oxen, at $150 per yoke... 600.00 6 three-year-old … (Richards v. McDaniel (2 Nott & McCord, 351, and 1 McCord, 187 ); In re Desty (8 Abb. New Cases (N. Y.) 250; In re an Alien ( 7 Hill, 141 ); Dryden v. Swinburne ( 20 W. Va., 89 ); Long v. Randall ( 4 Dill., 425 ).

Ellis

27 Cont. Cas. Fed. 80,366 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 18, 1980

Bookman v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 108, 116 , 453 F.2d 1263, 1267 (1972); Wilmot v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 666, 682, 686 (1974). … In AFGE v.

Barnes v. United States

150 F. Supp. 317 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 3, 1957

On July 16,1948, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing posted on its bulletin board Bulletin No. 746 announcing that in the near future there would be conducted an examination for “promotion” of Bureau civil service employees … Adams, et al., v. George M. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., 232 F. 2d 40, 41 .]

Tom v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

22 Cl. Ct. 214 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 13, 1990

Brown v. Secretary, DHHS, 920 F.2d 918, 919 (Fed.Cir.1990). Likewise in Hanagan v. … See Brown v. Secretary, DHHS, at 920-21. See also Strother v. Secretary, DHHS, 21 Cl.Ct. 365, 377 (1990); Davis v. Secretary, DHHS, 19 Cl.Ct. 395, 404 (1990); Clark v.

Nevada v. United States

45 Ct. Cl. 254 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 14, 1910

“V. … (United States v. Tanner, 147 U. S., 661 ; United States v. Finnell, 185 ibid., 236; Penoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S., 1 .)

Andrews v. United States

52 Ct. Cl. 373 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 30, 1917

This court in a recent opinion by the Chief Justice in Griffis v. … Newcomber v. United States, 51 C. Cls., 408 ; Magin-nis v. United States, ante, p. 271.

Farnsworth & Chambers Co., Inc. v. The United States

383 F.2d 407 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1967

An adjustment in the contract price was denied by the Corps of Engineers Claims and Appeals Board, primarily, it appears, because the Board did not accept plaintiff’s report that there was a large opening in the bed of the … Co. v. United States, 337 F.2d 861 , 162 Ct.Cl. 802 (1963).