Case law

Alfred A. Altimont, Inc. v. United States

579 F.2d 622 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1978

Miller, Inc. v. United States, supra. … Co. v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 1, 6 , 314 F.2d 501 , 504 (1963). As was mentioned briefly at the outset, the board reached its outcome by a different route..

The Jack Stone Company, Inc. v. The United States

344 F.2d 370 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1965

Kaiser Industries Corp. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 340 F.2d 322 , p. *375 329, decided Jan. 22, 1965; Pfotzer v. … Farwell Co. v. United States, 148 F.Supp. 947 , 137 Ct.Cl. 832 (1957); Henry Spen & Co. v. United States, 153 F.Supp. 407 , 139 Ct. Ct. 613 (1957); Octagon Process, Inc. v. United States, 141 Ct.Cl. 599, 604 (1958).

Lipp v. United States

157 Ct. Cl. 197 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 4, 1962

Mistretta v. United States, 128 Ct. Cl. 41 ; MacFarlane v. United States, 134 Ct. Cl. 755 ; Cuiffo v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 60 ; Schmeichel v. United States, 134 Ct. Cl. 809 ; Barker v. United States, 135 Ct. … Levine v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 774 ; Bosnick v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 1 ; Girault v. United States, supra; Duff v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 161 ; Odell v. United States, 134 Ct. Cl. 634 .

Gerald W. Monett v. The United States

419 F.2d 434 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1969

But plaintiff maintains that his agreement must be construed in the light of three prior Board of Review decisions (United States v. Renner, CM 393739, January 10, 1957 (unpublished); United States v. … It is on this point that the three Board cases are distinguishable. United States v.

Bruno v. United States

556 F.2d 1104 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 15, 1977

In Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct.Cl. 1 , 310 F.2d 381 (1962), cert. denied sub nom. Lipp v. … Gordon v. United States, 134 Ct.Cl. 840, 844 , 140 F.Supp. 263, 265 (1956). *388 Yet plaintiffs final Physical Evaluation Board report clearly states: 1.

Dalton v. United States

71 Ct. Cl. 421 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 12, 1931

Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 273 Fed. 886 ; Traylor Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 277 Fed. 248 ; United States v. Matthews, 282 Fed. 266 ; Buffalo Union Furnace Co. v. U. … Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. Tabas, 22 Fed. (2d) 398. In United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v.

Furlong v. United States

146 F. Supp. 823 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 5, 1956

Some of the many other cases in which we have followed this rule are Hornblass v. United States, 93 Ct.Cl. 148 ; Hermann v. United States, 81 F.Supp. 830 , 113 Ct. Cl. 54 ; Pacific Maritime Association v. … Ordinarily the time for an officer to make application to go before a retiring board is before he is separated from the service, but there is no requirement that he do so then or not at all. See Updike v.

McCollum v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,013 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1984

A board’s findings of fact, however, are binding on the court unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious or not supported by substantial evidence. See Flexible Metal Hose Co. v. … Hedin Construction Co., Inc. v.

Elizey

618 F.2d 119 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 19, 1979

Ramsey v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 1042 , cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1068 (1979); Kirby v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 527, 531 (1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 919 (1974); Mathis v. United States, 183 Ct. … See, e.g., Schiffman v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 646 , 319 F.2d 886 (1963); Capps v. United States, 133 Ct. Cl. 811 , 137 F.Supp. 721 (1956).

James A. Beckham v. The United States

375 F.2d 782 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1967

He appeared before a medical review board; the board had him examined and prepared á report of his medical history for-the Physical Evaluation Board. … Board.

Uhley v. United States

121 F. Supp. 674 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 8, 1954

Under these statutes and regulations, the determination of the underlying facts must be made by retiring boards. As stated by the court in Spencer v. … The Army Regulations * * * in effect at the time plaintiff went before a retiring board, make no distinction between these classes of officers.” See, also, to the same effect, Hamrick v.

National Movers Co. Inc. v. The United States

386 F.2d 999 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 9, 1967

Thus, the factual findings of the Board are final and conclusive, unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious and unsupported by the evidence. Wunderlich Act, 41 U.S.C. § 321 ; United States v. … (Board Decision p. 7, para. 2.) This fact is significant in light of plaintiff’s burden in a breach of contract case to demonstrate its willingness and ability to perform. See, United States v. Penn Foundry & Mfg.

Cuiffo v. United States

137 F. Supp. 944 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 1, 1955

In Moore v. … In Martilla v.

Gaskins v. United States

652 F.2d 70 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 10, 1981

Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82 (1921); Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290 (1900); Wathen v. United States, supra, 208 Ct. Cl. at 352 , 527 F.2d at 1197 . … Crisan v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 682 (1980); Wathen v. United States, supra, 208 Ct. Cl. at 351 , 527 F.2d at 1197 ; Morelli v. United States, supra, 177 Ct. Cl. at 858; Knotts v. United States, 128 Ct.

Weiner v. United States

148 Ct. Cl. 445 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1960

In July 1955 this court decided in Updike v. United States, 132 C. … On July 12, 1955, the Court of Claims decided Updike v. United States, 132 C.

Johnson & Sons Erectors Co. v. United States

30 Cont. Cas. Fed. 70,001 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 18, 1982

E.g., Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc. v. United States, 201 Ct.Cl. 135 , 475 F.2d 630 (1973). A horrible example of the consequences of this happening is afforded by Spearin v. … Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 639 , 528 F.2d 1392 (1976).

Bernard G. Browning v. The United States

373 F.2d 915 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1967

Keener v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 334, 339 (1964). … Zachry Co. v. United States, 344 F.2d 352 , 170 Ct.Cl. 115 (1965).

Hearne v. United States

68 F. Supp. 786 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1946

The plaintiff’s situation is substantially identical with that of Townsley who was given a judgment by this court, Townsley v. … Justice Day speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States in Norris v.

Shaw v. United States

622 F.2d 520 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 30, 1980

Friedman v. United States 159 Ct. Cl. 1, 11 , 310 F.2d 381, 387 (1962), cert. denied sub nom. Lipp v. United States, 373 U.S. 932 (1963). See Wright v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 831 (1974). In Williams v. … Horne v. United States, supra at 150, 419 F.2d at 419 ; Dargo v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 1193, 1206 (1966).

Ramsey v. United States

107 F. Supp. 957 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 4, 1952

The principles involved in this case are on all fours with the issues involved in the cases of Womer v. United States, 114 C. Cls. 415 , and Hamrick v. United States, 120 C. Cls. 17 . … We quote from the case of Almour v.