Case law

Collins v. United States

24 Cl. Ct. 32 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 23, 1991

In Voge v. … As stated in Hary v.

FFR Building Specialties Corp. v. United States

29 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,999 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 30, 1981

We must consider a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, reported as FFR Building Specialties Corp. v. United States Army, ASBCA No. 23187 , 80-1 BCA ¶ 14,326 (1980). … Guyler Co. v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 403 , 593 F.2d 406 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 843 (1979); S.O.G. of Arkansas v. United States, 212 Ct. *540 Cl. 125 , 546 F.2d 367 (1976); Wickham Contracting Co. v.

Wilson

618 F.2d 123 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 31, 1979

In reviewing actions of a correction board, this court recognizes a strong presumption that the board acted in good faith. Plaintiff has the burden of proving otherwise. Cooper v. United States, 203 Ct. … To *854 overturn a decision of the board, plaintiff must show by "cogent and clearly convincing evidence that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or unlawful.” Dorl v. United States, 200 Ct.

Irwin & Leighton v. United States

115 Ct. Cl. 18 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 5, 1949

the National War Labor Board.” … Plaintiffs next contend that in any event they are entitled to recover on the ground of misrepresentation, citing the concurring opinion in the Sunswick case and our decision in Albert & Harrison, Inc., v.

Lewicki v. United States

204 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 20, 1974

Horne v. United States, 190 Ct. Cl. 145, 150 , 419 F. 2d 416, 419 (1969); Travis v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 67, 70 (1972). We concur with the unreported decision of Richard M. Goldman v. United States (W.D. … See Cowan v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 739, 744-45 , 316 F. 2d 740, 744 (1963); Ward v. United States, 158 F. 2d 499, 500-01 (8th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 844 (1947).

Weise

650 F.2d 290 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 15, 1980

Doyle v. United States, 220 Ct. Cl. 285 , 599 F. 2d 984 (1979). In that, and the companion case, Adams v. United States, Ct. Cl. … See also Dilley v. Alexander, 603 F. 2d 914 (1979), rev’g 440 F. Supp. 375 (D.D.C. 1977).

J. F. Barbour & Sons v. United States

63 F. Supp. 349 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 5, 1945

Gothwaite v. The United States, 102 *351 Ct. … Gothwaite v.

Robert Thomas Quick v. The United States

428 F.2d 1294 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1970

The Civil Service Commission’s Board of Appeals and Review (BAR) found the demotion to be a voluntary one and accordingly rejected plaintiff’s claim. We affirm their decision. … Brown simply told him that “by regulation, his salary could not exceed that of his * * * supervisor, the Assistant Chief.”

Benton v. United States

488 F.2d 1017 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 19, 1973

National Labor Relations Board v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291 (1965). … Por example, In Ramspeck v.

S.S. Silberblatt, Inc. v. United States

228 Ct. Cl. 729 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 2, 1981

The Board discussed this court’s decision in Bell v. United States, 186 Ct. … The Board also summarized our decisions in Dravo Corp. v. United States 219 Ct. Cl. 416 , 594 F.2d 842 (1979); Singer Co. v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 281 , 568 F.2d 695 (1977), and Framlau Corp. v.

Knightly v. United States

227 Ct. Cl. 767 · United States Court of Claims · May 29, 1981

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976); United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (1969). We cannot appoint or promote military or civilian personnel. It is not the business of the court to run the Army. Orloff v. … Kingsley v. United States, 172 Ct. Cl. 549 (1965).

Lee Hoffman v. The United States

340 F.2d 645 · United States Court of Claims · May 15, 1964

Bateson Co. v. … As we stated, in Williams v.

National Fire Ins. Co. v. United States

52 F.2d 1011 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 20, 1931

In Ohio Steel Foundry Co. v. United States, 38 F.(2d) 144 , 69 Ct. Cl. 158 , and Arthur Curtiss James v. United States, 38 F.(2d) 140 , 69 Ct. … See Bonwit Teller So Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 258 , 51 S. Ct. 395 , 75 L. Ed. 1018 .

Frith v. United States

156 Ct. Cl. 188 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 12, 1962

The Air Force Disability Review Board affirmed the findings of the Disability Appeal Board on July 5, 1955. … Plaintiff insists that such action was in contravention of the views expressed by this court in the cases of Proper v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 511 ; Betts v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 530 ; Eicks v.

Gruendyke v. United States

639 F.2d 745 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 14, 1981

Hary v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 10 , 618 F.2d 704 (1980); Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 285 , 594 F.2d 804 (1979). See also Yee v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 388 , 512 F.2d 1383 (1975). … Unlike in Skinner v.

Arens v. United States

24 Cl. Ct. 407 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 31, 1991

Muse v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 592, 601 (1990) (citations omitted); Moore v. United States, 5 Cl.Ct. 457, 459 (1984). … See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575-76 , 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1512-13 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Hambsch v.

Kaeserman

202 Ct. Cl. 1081 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 1, 1973

This is for the Board to determine. “The duty of the Board to ‘remove an injustice’ ( 10 U.S.C. § 1552 ) is broader than and different from its duty to ‘correct an error’. … Therefore, under authority of Public Law 92-415 and General Order No. 3 of 1972, par. 3(c), we remand the case to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with this order, in light of Skaradowski v.

Teitelbaum v. United States

458 F.2d 72 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1972

The Board credited defendant’s, not plaintiff’s, proof on this point. 23 In this circumstance, the Board’s factual finding is entitled to finality. Ibid. See also Vann v. United States, 190 Ct. … Law v. United States, 195 Ct. Cl. 370 (1971); Boyajian v. United States, supra. 'Still to be assayed in the light of plaintiff’s strenuous challenges to them are, however, other “findings” of the Board.

Pneumatic Gun-Carriage & Power Co. v. United States

36 Ct. Cl. 71 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1901

(Child et al. v. United States, 12 Wall., 232 , and 7 C. Cls. R., 209 ; Mann v. United States, 17 Wall., 67 , and 8 C. Cls. R., 125 ; Comstock's case, 9 C. Cls. … (Insurance Association v. Wickham, 141 U. S. R., 564 , and authorities there cited; Cape Ann Granite Company v. United States, 20 C. Cls. R., 1 .)

Truong Xuan Truc v. United States

22 Cont. Cas. Fed. 80,065 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 17, 1976

There was no testimony submitted to the Board nor any Board hearing in the adversary sense. The Board rendered its decision on a record composed only of documents. See Blanchard v. United States, 171 Ct. … In any event, the Board ostensibly failed to give due consideration to the proposition that contract provisions should be construed, if possible, to be lawful rather than unlawful. See Hobbs v.