Case law

American Woolen Co. v. United States

21 F. Supp. 125 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1937

to the Board. … In the case of Peerless Woolen Mills v.

J. A. Zachariassen & Co. v. United States

94 Ct. Cl. 315 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 2, 1941

We so held in Royal Holland Lloyd v. United States, 73 C. … In Hamburg-American Steam Packet Co. v.

American Woolen Co. v. United States

21 F. Supp. 1021 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 7, 1938

It will be observed that the Old Colony Trust Co. v. … We have considered the Board of Tax Appeals cases cited by plaintiff as being to the contrary of its decision in the case of Peerless Woolen Mills 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.

L. W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc. v. The United States

405 F.2d 1285 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1969

While we give great deference to the expertise and hence to the findings of the Board on these matters (cf. Red Circle Corp. v. … Corp. v. United States, 98 F.Supp. 590, 594 , 120 Ct.Cl. 139, 169 (1951); cf. Leal v. United States, 276 F.2d 378, 383 , 149 Ct.Cl. 451, 460 (1960); Ragonese v.

Monningh v. United States

1 Cl. Ct. 427 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 25, 1983

v. … No. 535-79C (July 31,1981); Elizey v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. at 590 .

Kirwin v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 497 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 21, 1991

Beckham v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 628 , 392 F.2d 619 (1968); Dayley v. United States, 180 Ct.Cl. 1136 (1967); Cooper v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 277 (1967); Smith v. United States, 168 Ct.Cl. 545 (1964). … For example, in Cassel v.

Dairy Sales Corp. v. United States

593 F.2d 1002 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 21, 1979

As such, the Board’s determination, of course, is entitled to no degree of finality. See e.g., Truong Xuan Truc v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 51, 64 (1976) and cases cited therein. … In support of its contention that the Board erred as a matter of law in denying anticipatory profits, plaintiff cites two cases, namely, United States v. Behan, 110 U.S. 338 (1883) and United States v. Penn Mfg.

Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation v. The United States

429 F.2d 431 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1970

Co. v. … S. v. Rice] v. U. S., 317 U.S. 61 [ 63 S.Ct. 120 , 87 L.Ed. 53 ] ; Choteau [sic] v. U. S., 95 U.S. 61 [ 24 L.Ed. 371 ]; Crook Co. v. U. S., 270 U.S. 4 [ 46 S.Ct. 184 , 70 L.Ed. 438 ].

Harvey Ward Locke v. United States

283 F.2d 521 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 2, 1960

Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Board of Review, General Services Administration, and following a full hearing, 2 the board rendered the following decision: “1. Contract No. … The board’s decision is entirely supportable in view of the record and we shall not disturb it. Plaintiff’s second contention sounds in tort and is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. Bornhoft v.

Merson v. United States

173 Ct. Cl. 92 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1965

Boards may seek and consider the comments of the medical authorities of the United States in considering the entire record. Uhley v. United States, 137 Ct. Cl. 275 ; 147 F. Supp. 497 (1957); Towell v. … of the Board [that Boland was not incapacitated at the time of his release from duty]. * * * In Williams v.

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.

Gordon v. United States

121 F. Supp. 625 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 8, 1954

Plaintiff applied to the Army Board on Correction of Military Records for relief. … It must be concluded, therefore, that plaintiff has not been deprived of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution and under the authority of United States v.

Laka Tool & Stamping Co. v. United States

639 F.2d 738 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 17, 1980

Jennie-O Foods, Inc. v. United States, supra, 217 Ct. Cl. at 328-29 , 580 F.2d at 409 ; Natus Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 1, 9 , 371 F.2d 450, 456 (1967). … Foster Wheeler Corp. v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 533 , 513 F.2d 588 (1975); Hol-Gar Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 518 , 360 F.2d 634 (1966).

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 .)

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 .

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.”

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.

Griffin & Dickson v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,627 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 24, 1989

Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399 (5th Cir.1985); Morris v. Ocean Sys. Inc., 730 F.2d 248 (5th Cir.1984). … In Baltimore Contractors Inc. v.

L. Rosenman Corporation v. The United States

390 F.2d 711 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 16, 1968

Upon appeal, the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (hereafter referred to as the “Board”) divided evenly on the question of liability. 1 Nevertheless, the members of the Board unanimously agreed that … Proceedings here will have to be suspended so that the parties can return to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals for determination of the amount due plaintiff. United States v.