Case law

M. F. Comer Bridge & Fountain Co. v. United States

178 F. Supp. 808 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1959

However, Congress can take notice of its own proceedings and if it desires to make an award based on the broad principles of equity, Gay Street Corporation v. United States, 130 C. … The plaintiff appealed the decision of the contracting officer and, on January 27,1955, the Navy Contract Appeals Panel of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 713 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 29, 1992

Each of them has a specific place in the financial organization of the church and is supervised directly by its own Board of Trustees. … Gregory v.

Port of Seattle v. United States

450 F.2d 1363 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 12, 1971

Jarisen v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 346, 355 , 344 F. 2d 363, 369 (1965). 45. … Wender Presses, Inc. v. United States, 170 a. Cl. 483, 343 F. 2d 961 (1965).

Kamen Soap Products Co. v. United States

124 F. Supp. 608 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1954

Had the Quartermaster complied with the Acceleration Clause in the Contract, and furnished us with V. S. … He still does not have information on V. S. D. He hopes to receive it any day now. On future Army bids we should add on 25% for such stupid contingencies. The diary kept by Mr. Macintosh shows that Mr.

Louisville Stone of Liberty, Ky., Inc. v. United States

376 F.2d 314 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1967

Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892). … Separate sets of books, bank accounts, stockholders and board of directors meetings, and additional state filing requirements would be necessary.

Choctaw Nation v. United States

91 Ct. Cl. 320 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 1, 1940

In Church v. … Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Board of Woodson County, Kan., 145 Fed. 144 ; Hawkeye Commercial Men's Ass'n v. Christy, 294 Fed. 208 ; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. French Mut. Gen. Society of Mut.

Grace Line Inc. v. United States

155 Ct. Cl. 482 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 1, 1961

Tidewater Coal Exchange, Inc. v. United States, 67 Ct. Cl. 590 (1929); Restatement, Contracts, §21 (1932). … Appendix II to tbe Brief of the United States filed in this court on June 30, 1942 in United Fruit Company v.

Gasser v. United States

14 Cl. Ct. 476 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 4, 1988

Date of Taking In Dickinson v. … See Brown v. United States, 5 Cl.Ct. 1, 17, aff'd, 741 F.2d 1374 (Fed.Cir.1984).

Padbloc Co. v. United States

161 Ct. Cl. 369 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1963

See United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U.S. 174, 183 (1944); S.R.A., Inc. v. Minnesota, 327 U.S. 558, 564 (1946); Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock, 347 U.S. 110, 121-22 (1954); United States v. … See Benedict v. Pincus, 191 N.Y. 377 , 84 N.E. 284 (1908) ; Petterson v. Pattherg, 248 N.Y. 86 , 161 N.E. 428 (1928) ; Crancer v. Lareau, 1 F. 2d 117 (C.A. 8, 1924) ; Sonino v. Magrini, 234 N.Y. Supp. 63 (App.

Standard Manufacturing Co. v. United States

25 Cl. Ct. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 20, 1991

Browning Mfg. Co. v. Brothers, Inc., 134 U.S.P.Q. … In some eases a PTO board of appeals may have approved the issuance of the patent. American Hoist and Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, 725 F.2d at 1359 . 3.

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. The United States

408 F.2d 690 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 14, 1969

Eastern School v. United States, 381 F.2d 421 , 180 Ct.Cl. 676 (1967) ; GMO Niehaus & Co. v. United States, 373 F.2d 944 , 179 Ct.Cl. 232, 253 (1967) ; Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. … In Connecticut Light and Power Co. v.

Aerojet-General Corp. v. United States

568 F.2d 729 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 14, 1977

The incorporation of the latter principle in ASPR reflects acceptance of a 1967 holding to that effect by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Technical Communications Corp., 67-2 BCA ¶ 6525 . … United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 605 (1941).

Tannahill v. United States

25 Cl. Ct. 149 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1992

Grant, 531 F.2d at 677 ; accord Telectronics Proprietary, Ltd. v. Medtronic, Inc., 836 F.2d 1332, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1988); Ah Ju Steel Co. v. Armco, Inc., 680 F.2d 751, 754 , 69 CCPA 161 (1982); Board of Educ. v. … Favell, Jr. v. United States, No. 525-76; Gilles Marotte v. United States, No. 531-76; Frederick E. Speck v. United States, No. 42-77; Garnett E. Bailey v. United States, No. 122-77; and John J. Hanna v.

Connolly-Pacific Co. v. United States

358 F.2d 995 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 15, 1966

(Dodge Street Building Corporation v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 496, 501 , 341 F. 2d, 641, 644 (1965). See also Commerce International Company, Inc. v. United States, 167 Ct. Cl. 529, 537 , 338 F. 2d, 81, 86 (1964). … Your breakdown estimate will be subject to final determination 'by a Board of Changes. 44.

Charles A. Coakwell v. United States

292 F.2d 918 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1961

The Board of Interference Examiners found that plaintiff was. This was the final determination of the Patent Office. … 'The Supreme Court in Morgan v.

Solar Turbines, Inc. v. United States

38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,409 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 25, 1992

In Everett Plywood & Door Corp. v. … Moreover, in Kalvar Corp. v.

Aktiebolaget Bofors v. United States

153 F. Supp. 397 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1957

Grant Construction Co. v. United States, 124 C. Cls. 202 . Even if valid, we think its breach does not give rise to a cause of action against the United States. … (c) The development of a new gun by the plaintiff, from the drafting-board stage to a finished production model, usually requires a period of from five to eight years. 6.

Hale v. United States

10 Ct. Cl. 289 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1874

(Lytle v. Arkansas, 9 How., 314 .) … (Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet., 436 ; Barry v. Gamble, 3 How., 32 ; Lessieur v. Price, 12 id., 57 ; Hale v. Gaines, 22 id., 144; Rector v. Ashley, 6 Wall., 143 ; McKay v. Easton, 19 Wall., 619 .)

Baskett v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 201 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1985

See Rhoads v. United States, 6 Cl.Ct. 278, 279 (1984); Loesch v. United States, supra, 227 Ct.Cl. at 43 , 645 F.2d at 913 ; Coates v. United States, 124 Ct.Cl. 806, 811-813 , 110 F.Supp. 471, 474-75 (1953); Yazel v. … Other than reviewing his 1972 report and observing the Hannibal pool, the only other basis of his opinions given during trial was 2 days of observations on a portion of the McAlpine and Cannelton pools made while on board

Willett v. United States

406 F.2d 1346 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 14, 1969

Schieffelin & Co. v. United States, C. D. 3640, decided December 11, 1968 (Slip op., Customs Bulletin, January 1, 1969). … We held this, in effect, in Ross Michael Simon Trust v. United States, 185 Ct. Cl. 291 , 402 F. 2d 272 (1968).