Case law

Norair Engineering Corp. v. United States

666 F.2d 546 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1981

See United States v. Rice, 317 U.S. 61 (1942). In the instant case the board held that it had jurisdiction, and defendant did not reraise the issue in its answer to the petition in this court. … We consider the question to have been answered in favor of jurisdiction in Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc, v. United States, 189 Ct.

McCormick v. United States

109 F. Supp. 718 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 13, 1953

It is clear, however, that the statute of limitations was not tolled during the'period the claim was under consideration by the Board. Love v. United States, 122 C. Cls. 144 ; Tan v. United States, 122 C. … Wheeler v. United States, C. Cls. No. 74-52, decided December 2, 1952.

Donnelly v. United States

134 F. Supp. 635 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1955

Goldstein v. United States, Ct.Cl., 130 F.Supp. 330 . Appointment is an executive function, involving the exercise of executive discretion. Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290 , 20 S.Ct. 574 , 44 L.Ed. 774 . … United States v. McLean, 95 U.S. 750, 753 , 24 L.Ed. 579 ; Amundson v. United States, 120 F.Supp. 201 , 128 Ct.Cl. 80 ; Coleman v. United States, 100 Ct.Cl. 41 .

Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. United States

643 F.2d 729 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 25, 1981

Since it is impermissible for the court to probe the decisional and thought processes of the Board and its members, see United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941), Montrose Chemical Corp. v. … In United States v.

General Electric Company, a Corporation v. The United States

412 F.2d 1215 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 17, 1969

See Biddle v. United States, 186 Ct.Cl. 87, 104 (1968); Holman v. United States, 383 F.2d 411 , 181 Ct.Cl. 1 (1967); Harrington v. United States, 161 Ct.Cl. 432 (1963). … E. g., New York Shipbuilding Corp. v. United States, 385 F.2d 427 , 180 Ct.Cl. 446 (1967) (and cases cited); John A. Johnson Contracting Corp. v. United States, 132 F.Supp. 698 , 132 Ct.Cl. 645 (1955).

Conn v. United States

366 F.2d 1019 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 14, 1966

United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966); United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., 384 U.S. 424 (1966); Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. … Co. v. United States, decided this day, ante, p. 234; Austin Eng'r Co. v. United States, 88 Ct. Cl. 559, 563-64 (1939) ; Holton Seelye & Co. v. United States, 106 Ct. Cl. 477, 498-501 , 65 F. Supp. 903, 906-07 (1946).

McWilliams Dredging Co. v. United States

118 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1950

In the case of Martin Wunderlich v. … The contract does not provide for an appeal on a question of law to this Board.

Knight v. United States

152 Ct. Cl. 298 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 18, 1961

In Furlong v. United States, 138 Ct. … Cl. 511 ; Friedman v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 239 ; Patterson v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 435 ; and Allin v. United States, 147 Ct. Cl. 459 , have been decided by this conrt.

Instrument Systems Corp. v. United States

546 F.2d 357 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1976

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board, 425 F. 2d 578 (D.C. Cir. 1970); Fisher v. Renegotiation Board, 473 F. 2d 109 (D.C. Cir. 1972), on remand, Fisher v. Renegotiation Board, 355 F. … S. v. United States, 198 Ct.

Iconco v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,720 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 1, 1984

The Board’s use of the preponderance test is a proper one. See Davis v. United States, 180 Ct.Cl. 20, 32 (1967). See also Wm. A. Smith Contracting Co. v. … It is the function of the Board, not the court, to resolve conflicts in evidence. See Dean Constr. Co. v. United States, 188 Ct.Cl. 62 , 67-68, 411 F.2d 1238, 1241, 1242 (1969); General Dynamics Corp. v.

Bennett v. United States

200 Ct. Cl. 635 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 16, 1973

Unterberg v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 994, 1003 , 412 F.2d 1341, 1346 (1969); Furlong v. United States, 153 Ct. Cl. 557, 565 (1961); Wales v. United States, 132 Ct. *644 Cl. 765, 769 , 130 F. … Wales v. United States, supra, 132 Ct. Cl. at 769 , 130 F.

Etheredge v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 736 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 26, 1985

The statute, however, is clear that the BCNR must render its decisions through Board members, not employees or staff of the Board. See Proper v. … Therefore, it is found that the Board was improperly constituted. In these circumstances, defendant takes the position that a remand to the Board is the appropriate remedy, citing Haber v.

Philadelphia Regent Builders, Inc. v. United States

634 F.2d 569 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 22, 1980

All findings of fact by the board must be upheld unless they are fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or not supported by substantial evidence. Koppers Co. v. … Tapper & Assocs. v. United States, 222 Ct. Cl. 34 , 611 F.2d 354 (1979); Troup Bros. v. United States, 221 Ct. Cl. 850 (1979)2 Should read "Administrator” instead of "Secretary.”

Berdan Fire-Arms Manufacturing Co. v. United States

26 Ct. Cl. 48 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 8, 1890

(Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wallace, 531; Case v. Brown, 2 Wallace, 820; Seymour v. Osborn, 11 Wallace, 516; Dedrick v. Seigmund, Official Gazette, vol. 52, No. 10, p. 1537; The Corn Planter Patent, 23 Wallace, 181.) … It appeared that Palmer had exhibited his invention to a board of army officers, which recommended its adoption to the War Department.

Rutherford v. United States

573 F.2d 1224 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 19, 1978

Finn v. United States, supra, at 356, 548 F. 2d *170 at 342 ; Cooper v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 277 (1967); Merson v. United States, supra. … Finn v. United States, supra at 357, 548 F. 2d at 342 ; Unterberg v. United States, supra; Williams v. United States, 186 Ct. Cl. 611 , 405 F. 2d 890 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 966 (1969).

Morris v. United States

163 Ct. Cl. 259 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 15, 1963

There was no requirement that the plaintiff go before the Correction Board and the proceedings of and before that Board are immaterial to the resolution of the conventional judicial cause of action now presented to this court … Friedman v. United States, supra; Carver v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 67, 74 (1962); Aflague v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 80, 87 , 309 F. 2d 753, 756 (1962).

General Dynamics Corp. v. United States

585 F.2d 457 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 18, 1978

McCord v. United States, 9 Ct. Cl. 155 (1873), aff'd sub nom. Chouteau v. United States, 95 U.S. 61 (1877). … A case cited therein, United States v.

H. R. Henderson & Co. v. United States

169 Ct. Cl. 228 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1965

Co. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 802, 808-09 , 337 F. 2d 861, 863-64 (1963), and WPC Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 163 Ct. … Co. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. at p. 808 .

Hemphill Schools, Inc. v. United States

135 F. Supp. 946 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 6, 1955

Plaintiff’s petition characterizes these actions of the Board as “erroneous”. … It says that United States v. Jones, Receiver, 336 U. S. 641 , and Capital Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 116 C. Cls. 850 , preclude this court from reviewing the rate determinations of the administrative-agency.

Ranieri v. United States

96 Ct. Cl. 494 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 2, 1942

brown clay. … Trimount Dredging Co. v. United States, 80 C. Cls. 559 ; James Stewart & Co., Inc., v. United States, 94 C. Cls. 95 .