Case law

George J. Grant Construction Co. v. United States

109 F. Supp. 245 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 13, 1953

See United States v. Moorman, 338 U. S. 457 ; United States v. Wunderlich, 342 U. S. 98 . What we have said disposes of the plaintiff’s claims which are grounded upon delays allegedly caused by the Government. … We think, however, that the numerous Supreme Court decisions, the latest of which are United States v. Moorman , and United States v.

Weeks Dredging & Contracting, Inc. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,614 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 26, 1986

V. … Brown v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 409, 412 (1983). .

Gibbs Corp. v. United States

127 Ct. Cl. 280 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 5, 1954

Under the doctrine announced in Schaefer and Robbins v. United States, 114 C. Cls. 568, 570 , that act provides for suit after such finding has been made. … It is $25,471.76 less than the cost as originally represented, and appears to he reasonable and in conformity with the Keport of the Advisory Board on Just Compensation, dated December 7, 1943.

Pennsylvania Railroad v. United States

165 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 13, 1964

United States v. … In Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company v.

Milwaukee Engineering & Shipbuilding Co. v. United States

121 F. Supp. 922 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 8, 1954

United States v. Wunderlich, 342 U. S. 98 . … They shall be of the high speed, V-bottom type and of strong and rugged construction.

Grey v. United States

21 Cl. Ct. 285 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 9, 1990

Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 607 , 372 F.2d 1002, 1009 (1967). 1. United States v. Mitchell In United States v. … or for a different purpose, than the water initially appropriated, the United States in accordance with Winters must stand in line with other aspiring water users before the appropriate state or compact water allocation board

Missouri Pacific Corp. v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 296 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1984

From Anderson v. … Plaintiff also paid a fee of $1,500 to special counsel to its board of directors in consideration of such counsel’s review of the proposed settlement.

Fogg v. United States

180 Ct. Cl. 605 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 9, 1967

Grahl v. United States, 167 Ct. … United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14 (1926).

Big Chief Drilling Co. v. United States

38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,418 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 25, 1992

DAMAGES In Ramsey v. … Myerle v. United States, supra, p. 27 [Myerle v. United States, 33 Ct.Cl. 1 (1897) ]. Ramsey v.

Hilo Coast Processing Co. v. United States

7 Cl. Ct. 175 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 8, 1985

Etelson v. OPM, 684 F.2d 918, 926 (D.C.Cir.1982); see Squaw Transit Co. v. … In Carruth v.

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. United States

13 Cl. Ct. 402 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 21, 1987

Paul & Pacific Railroad v. … United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 758, 762 (1983) (no recovery where handle left on valve); Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board v. United States, 18 Env’t Rep.Cas.

McCallin v. United States

180 Ct. Cl. 220 · United States Court of Claims · May 12, 1967

In Sofranoff v. United States, supra, the defect was that the plaintiff there was not sent before a board of medical survey for a determination of his alleged unsuitability as required in the regulations. … Finally, in Smith v.

Trans International Airlines, Inc. v. United States

351 F.2d 1001 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1965

E.g., Jansen v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 346, 356 , 344 F. 2d 363 (1965). … The contracting officer disallowed the claim, and an appeal was docketed with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

Miller v. United States

550 F.2d 17 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 23, 1977

See Ricci v. United States, 205 Ct.Cl. 687, 697-98 , 507 F.2d 1390, 1392 (1974); Willett v. United States, 186 Ct.Cl. 775, 787-88 , 406 F.2d 1346, 1353 (1969); Miller v. … Chelsea Factors, Inc. v. United States, 149 Ct.Cl. 202, 212 , 181 F.Supp. 685, 691 (1960). An intent to deceive the Government must be proved. Bar-Ray Products, Inc. v.

UMC Electronics Co. v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 604 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 2, 1985

See, e.g., Dominion Magnesium Ltd. v. United States, 162 Ct.Cl. 240, 248-49 , 320 F.2d 388, 394 (1963). 2 See also ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. … You were satisfied as a result of the bread-board prototype that was built that the invention, which you conceived, would work? THE WITNESS: That is right, Your Honor.

Southern Pacific Co. v. United States

59 Ct. Cl. 36 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 7, 1924

Co. v. United States, 52 C. Cls. 468 , and Oregon-Washington R. R. v. Nam. Co. v. United States, 54 C. Cls. 131 ; affirmed 255 U. S. 339 . … In Dowdy v.

Del Mar Engineering Laboratories v. United States

524 F.2d 1178 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 22, 1975

Young v. Dworkin, 489 F. 2d 1277 (CCPA 1974) ; Myers v. Feigelman, 455 F. 2d 596 (CCPA 1972); Engelhardt v. Judd, 369 F. 2d 408 (CCPA 1966). … Also, see, Kendall v. Winsor, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 322 (1858) ; Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D.C. 86 (1898) ; Young v.

Bowen-McLaughlin-York Co. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,492 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1986

Southwest Welding & Manufacturing Co., 179 Ct.Cl. 39, 51 , 373 F.2d 982, 989 (1967) (quoting Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans v. United States, 69 Ct.Cl. 52, 58 (1830). … The contractor places much reliance upon the above-cited case of Southwest Welding & Manufacturing Co. v.

Morowitz v. United States

15 Cl. Ct. 621 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 24, 1988

Darby, Morowitz, and Farber were nominated to Darby, Inc.’s Board of Directors on January 20, 1975. … Beck v.

Derek & Dana Contracting, Inc. v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,356 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 25, 1985

This court recently observed in Carrier Corp. v. … Johnson Controls, Inc. v.