Case law

Egley v. United States

576 F.2d 309 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 19, 1978

Indeed, the Gorike patent was relied upon by the examiner in an appeal to the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals against subsequently cancelled claims. … Bowser, Inc. v. United States, 181 Ct.Cl. 834, 844 , 388 F.2d 346, 351 (1967).

Taylor v. United States

197 Ct. Cl. 855 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1972

Shortly after boarding he was introduced to the ship’s master, Captain G. W. Fladerer. … Greenway v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 350, 357-58 , cert. denied, 385 U.S. 881 (1966); Angrisani v. United States, 172 Ct. Cl. 439, 443-44 (1965); Atkinson v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 585, 601 (1959); Engelhardt v.

Prairie Band of the Pottawatomie Tribe v. United States

564 F.2d 38 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 19, 1977

See National Labor Relations Board v. Plasterers’ Union, 404 U.S. 116 , 129 n.24 (1971); United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 562 (1940); United States v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 310 U.S. 534, 543-44 (1940). … Klamath and Moadoc Tribes v. United States, 296 U.S. 244, 251 (1935).

Related Industries, Inc. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,228 · United States Court of Claims · May 26, 1983

Mar v. Kleppe, 520 F.2d 867 (10th Cir.1975); Claxton v. Small Business Administration, 525 F.Supp. 777 (S.D.Ga.1981); Lloyd Wood Construction Co. v. Sandoval, 318 F.Supp. 1167 (N.D. … Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601-03 , 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2699-2700 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Board of Regents v.

Armiger v. United States

339 F.2d 625 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 11, 1964

Upon arrival by plane in Trinidad on February 6, the bandsmen boarded the U.S.S. Macon, which then departed for Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires, arriving at the latter port on February 20. … E.g., Cooner v. United States, supra; Chapin v. United States, supra.

Clifford L. Lionberger, D.B.A. Lionberger's Auto Parts v. The United States

371 F.2d 831 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1967

A similar conclusion was reached in the case of McClintock v. … See McClintock v. Westover, supra.

Hipkins v. United States

111 F. Supp. 274 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1953

Field Artillery Board_______ Field Artillery Board....... … This U- or V-shaped guide, or guard member, as shown in Fig. 3 of Hipkins patent 2,008,210, finding 24, extends inwardly into the space between the dual pneumatic tires, serves as a shield and prevents chafing of the tires

Reltool Service Co. v. United States

119 F. Supp. 957 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 6, 1954

Howard Industries, Inc. v. United States, 113 C. Cls. 231 ; McGann Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States, 98 F. Supp. 225 . The petition is dismissed. … The War Contract Hardship Claims Board denied Plasco’s claim on August 4,1949. 23.

Metropolitan Paving Co. v. United States

163 Ct. Cl. 420 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 13, 1963

Rogers v. United States, 99 Ct. Cl. 393 (1943) and George A. Fuller Co. v. United States, 108 Ct. Cl. 70 , 69 F. Supp. 409 (1947) involved similar situations. … Defendant, on the other hand, seems to rely on United States v.

Sanguinetti v. United States

55 Ct. Cl. 107 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 16, 1920

From the pioneer case of Pumpelly v. … Gibson v. United States, 166 U. S., 269 .

Royce, Inc. v. United States

126 F. Supp. 196 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 30, 1954

United States v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343 ; United States v. Fairchilds, Fed. case No. 15067 (D. C. W. D. Mich. 1867); United States v. Marks, Fed. case No. 15721 (CCD Ky. 1869). … Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Co. v. South Carolina, 261 U. S. 236 ; Stuart v. Easton, 170 U. S. 383 ; Oregon & California Railroad Co. v. United States, 238 U. S. 393 .

Wing Engineering Corp. v. United States

151 F. Supp. 314 · United States Court of Claims · May 8, 1957

Bliss v. United States, 253 U. S. 187, 191, 192 . In Crown Die & Tool Company v. Nye Tool & Machine Works, 261 U. … Camp v. Boyd, 229 U. S. 530, 559 ; United States v. Colorado Anthracite Company, 225 U. S. 219, 223; Craig v. Leslie, 3 Wheat. 563, 578 .

Scope Enterprises, Ltd. v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 875 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 7, 1989

Merritt v. … Angel v.

McKee v. United States

12 Ct. Cl. 504 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1876

(See, among other cases, Nortrup v. Graves, 19 Conn., 554 ; Culbreath v. Culbreath, 7 Geo., 64; Stedwell v. Anderson, 21 Conn., 139 ; Underwood v. Brochman, 4 Dana, 309 ; Hopkins v. Mazyck, 1 Hill Ch. … R., 242; Lawrence v. Beaubien, 2 Bailey, 623 ; Lowndes v. Chisolm, 2 McCord Ch. R., 455; Robinson v. City Council, 2 Richardson, 317, 320; Farmer v. Arundel, 2 Wm. Black, 825; Moses v. Macfarlan, 2 Burr, 1002.)

First Suburban Water Utility District of Davidson County v. United States

129 Ct. Cl. 8 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 13, 1954

As was stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Merriam v. United States, 107 U. … I quote from the case of Converse v. United States, 69 C.

Yuchi (Euchee) Tribe of Indians v. United States

145 F. Supp. 206 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 2, 1956

McGhee et al., v. United States, 122 C. … Cls. 592 ; Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U. S. 474 .

Winston Bros. v. United States

130 F. Supp. 374 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1955

Dist. v. Ickes, D. C. Circ., 116 F. 2d 529 , which cited and enforced the statutory provision quoted from the 1906 Act. … We also think that Congress would not have intended that the Bureau should make cuts much deeper than it did make in its permanent staff and expenses in its Denver office and its regional office, or in its wage board payrolls

Goldsmith v. United States

586 F.2d 810 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 15, 1978

In Centre v. … Ward v.

Shakespeare Co. v. United States

419 F.2d 839 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 14, 1969

See West Kentucky Coal Co. v. Walling, 153 F. 2d 582, 585 (6th Cir. 1946); Zehring v. Brown Materials, 48 F. Supp. 740, 743 (S.D. Cal. 1943). Several of plaintiff’s customers fit this well-established definition. … In view of Fitch Co. v.

Winston Bros. Company v. United States

130 F. Supp. 374 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1955

Dist. v. Ickes, 73 App.D.C. 23 , 116 F.2d 529 , which cited and enforced the statutory provision quoted from the 1906 Act. … We also think that Congress would not have intended that the Bureau should make cuts much deeper than it did make in its permanent staff and expenses in its Denver office and its regional office, or in its wage board payrolls