Case law

Last Chance Mining Co. v. United States

12 Cl. Ct. 551 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 26, 1987

Before declaring these ingredients a contract, plaintiff adds three board of contract appeals decisions, Sogge Construction Co., IBCA No. 286, 62 BCA ¶ 3594 (1962); Kenneth Holt, IBCA No. 279, 61-1 BCA ¶ 3060 (1961); and … Aulston v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 58, 60 (1986); see also Freese v. United States, 221 Ct.Cl. 963 (1979); Patterson v. United States, 115 Ct.Cl. 348 (1950); Dawson v.

Dravo Corp. v. United States

93 Ct. Cl. 270 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 3, 1941

In Moran v. … Plumley v. United States, 226 U. S. 545, 547 ; Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. United States, 241 U. S. 387, 393 ; Ripley v. United States, 223 U. S. 695, 701 ; United States v. John McShain, Inc., 308 U. S. 520, 521 .

Parks v. United States

15 Cl. Ct. 183 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1988

In a similar situation, the Court of Claims, in Brown v. … The court cited Cherry Cotton Mills, Inc. v.

Deloro Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States

161 Ct. Cl. 489 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1963

Padbloc Com pany, Inc. v. United States, ante, pp. 369, 377. … ARTICLE V 1.

deRochemont v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 80 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1991

R.R. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143 , 41 S.Ct. 55, 56 , 65 L.Ed. 188 (1920), so must government officials ‘walk around the same block’ when acting on the government’s behalf.” Roberts v. … Board of Regents v.

Stone Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States

38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,341 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 17, 1992

See Ludka v. United States, 24 Cl.Ct. 544 (1991). … Plaintiffs, relying on Big Chief Drilling Co. v.

Kirkconnell v. United States

347 F.2d 260 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1965

Inc. v. … V. United States, (S.D. Ala., 1963) Civil No. 2633, 1 Unemp. Ins. Rept. (CCH, 1963) Fed. ¶16,061. Defendant’s main authority is Cape Shore Fish Co. v. United States, supra; Capital Trawlers Inc. v. United States, 216 F.

Katherine Cunningham v. The United States

406 F.2d 1341 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 14, 1969

. § 1491 and DeNigris v. United States, 169 Ct.Cl. 619, 622 (1965), are outside the jurisdiction of this court. … It is clear that a telephone repairman went to her apartment on August 15, 1966 to stop her ’phone from buzzing at 'the building’s switch board. It is also clear that her ’phone was repaired on the 18th.

Scott Aviation v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,139 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 26, 1991

Thereafter, plaintiff had ninety days to appeal the termination for default to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), and one year to bring suit in this Court. … Industries, Inc. v.

Fink v. United States

454 F.2d 1387 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1972

In Poe v. … The Board found that said community income was received as compensation for professional services rendered by petitioner’s husband.

Malissa Co. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,750 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 16, 1989

Roberts v. … Shupe, Inc. v.

Chickasaw Nation v. United States

94 Ct. Cl. 215 · United States Court of Claims · May 5, 1941

Brown v. Spofford, 95 U. S. 474, 477 . The defendant had the right to make the Chickasaw Nation a party to the Net Proceeds case. … United States v. Creek Nation, and Shoshone Tribe v. United States, supra. *238 However, the facts in this case are unusual.

Hayes v. United States

20 Cl. Ct. 150 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 17, 1990

V 1987). … V 1987). Pursuant to this scheme, postal employees, like private industry employees, may file any unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 39 U.S.C. §§ 1202-1209 .

Bessemer Securities Corporation v. The United States

314 F.2d 521 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 6, 1963

Following what this court said in Pitcairn Co. v. … See Delaware Realty & Investment Co. v. Commissioner, supra, 234 F.2d 911 (C.A.3, 1956); Pitcairn Co. v. United States, 180 F.Supp. 582 , 148 Ct. Cl. 713 (1960); Woodbury Farms & Realty Co. v.

Al-Kurdi v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,288 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 31, 1992

In Gesellschaft the Board of Contract Appeals noted that— [Mjodern decisions adopt the approach of looking for the most significant connections of the transaction with a particular legal system or, as it is sometimes expressed … Crocker v. United States, 130 Ct.Cl. 567, 575 , 127 F.Supp. 568, 573 (1955); Todd v.

Zervas v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 1425 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 21, 1992

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 953 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 , 61 S.Ct. 767, 769 , 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941). … Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 607 , 372 F.2d 1002, 1009 (1967).

Enterprise Railway Equipment Co. v. United States

161 F. Supp. 590 · United States Court of Claims · May 7, 1958

Co. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 184 F.2d 833 , and American Pitch Pine Exp. Co. v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 188 F.2d 721 . … Home Oil Mill v. Willingham, D.C., 68 F.Supp. 525 ; Trinidad v. Sagrada Orden, etc., 263 U.S. 578 , 44 S.Ct. 204 , 68 L.Ed. 458 ; Helvering v.

Sterno Sales Corporation v. The United States. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Transferee and Successor of Sterno Corporation (Dissolved) and Sterno Sales Corporation (Dissolved) v. The United States

345 F.2d 552 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1965

Brown, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs, Alvord & Alvord, Washington, D. C., of counsel. Richard J. Boyle, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen., Louis F. Oberdorfer, for defendant, Lyle M. … In Smith v.

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. United States

165 Ct. Cl. 487 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 17, 1964

In United States v. Shoshone Tribe, supra, 304 U.S. at 118, the Court said: United States v. … Any Oneida had a right to cut logs and draw them to this mill; payment for the milling was to foe in kind (a portion of the boards fabricated by the mill).

Samples v. United States

136 Ct. Cl. 791 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 26, 1956

See Poggas v. United States, 118 C. Cls. 385 , Samples, et al. v. United States, in the case of Cecil Brayford, et al., 135 C. Cls. 548 . … The computations set forth in Exhibit 2, and the accompanying Recapitulations 1 through 3, are based on this *796 theory of defendant, that is, that in computing overtime due to monthly wage-board employees, it is not necessary