Case law

Paragon Energy Corp. v. United States

645 F.2d 966 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 8, 1981

This court has stated that agency boards of contract appeals have authority under the Contract Disputes Act to grant equitable reformation. Applied Devices Corp. v. … It was stated in Harvey v.

Atwell v. United States

1 F. Supp. 720 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 14, 1932

Following these two decisions, the Board, in considering the case of Bonwit Teller & Co. v. Commissioner, 17 B. T. … A. 1019, expressly overruled the McNeill Case, supra, and following this case the board considered the case of Julia Stow Lovejoy v. Commissioner, 18 B. T. A. 1179, and expressly overruled the Olinger Case, supra.

Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc. v. The United States

433 F.2d 766 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 13, 1970

Obviously there are factual issues to be resolved and that task is initially for the Board, not the Court. [United States v. Grace & Sons, supra, 384 U. S. 424, 432 , 86 S.Ct. 1539 .] … Co. v. United States, 171 Ct.Cl. 1, 8-9 (1965), and Heers v.

Ozark Dam Constructors v. United States

127 F. Supp. 187 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1955

C.A. § 151 et seq., appointed an emergency Board to investigate the dispute and make a report about it. The Board conducted hearings from July 14 to July 29 and made its report to the President on August 2. … It recognizes the decisions of this court such as Kehm Corp. v. United States, 93 F.Supp. 620 , 119 Ct.Cl. 454 ; George A. Fuller Co. v. United States, 69 F.Supp. 409 , 108 Ct.Cl. 70 ; Barling v.

Davis v. United States

196 Ct. Cl. 517 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 12, 1971

Cl. 185, 191 (1961); Smith v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 682, 691 (1961) ; Clackum v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 34, 36 (1963); Sofranoff v. United States, 165 Ct. Cl. 470, 479 (1964)). … In connection with the point mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the case of Garner v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 73 (1963), should be noted.

Real v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 118 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 31, 1989

Defendant Relying on Huffaker v. … In this context, we initially observe that resort to a corrections board is a permissive rather than a mandatory remedy. See, e.g., id. at 29-30, 310 F.2d at 398-99 . See also Bruno v.

De Laval Steam Turbine Co. v. United States

70 Ct. Cl. 51 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 30, 1930

In Russell Co. v. … Co. v. United States, supra; United States v. Benedict, 261 U. S. 294, 298 ; Brown v. United States, 263 U. S. 78 .”

Alexander v. United States

148 Ct. Cl. 24 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1960

Arant v. Lane, 249 U.S. 367 (1919), and Bailey v. United States, 144 C. Cls. 720 . … class by two Selection Boards, including the 1952 Selection Board, shall be separated from the Service. 3.

Allied Paint Manufacturing Co. v. United States

470 F.2d 556 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1972

Minneapolis-Moline Co. v. United States, 137 Ct. Cl. 790, 795 , 149 F. Supp. 146, 149 (1,957). Standard Form 32, Article 12 , Disputes; United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 378 U.S. 709 (1963) ; United States v. … . & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966) ; United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., 384 U.S. 424 (1966) ; Marley v. United States, 191 Ct. Cl. 205, 214 , 423 F. 2d 324, 329 (1970) ; H & H Mfg. Co. v.

Carter v. United States

518 F.2d 1199 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 25, 1975

General Electric Co. v. United States, 189 Ct. Cl. 116, 117 , 416 F. 2d 1320, 1321 (1969). We have done so. Defendant makes much of our error in citing Department of Defense Eegulations, 24 Fed. … At the opening of the board proceeding, the Senior Board Member (presiding) is to address the respondent in part as follows: * * * You have been selected to “Show Cause,” because in the opinion of a board of senior Air Force

Bethlehem Steel Corporation v. United States

423 F.2d 300 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 20, 1970

This contract language came before us for interpretation three years ago in Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. United States, 179 Ct.Cl. 97 , 374 F.2d 516 (1967). … Defendant refers, properly we think, to Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U.S. 268 , 89 S.Ct. 518 , 21 L.Ed.2d 474 (1969), as being in agreement with our position.

Newsom v. United States

676 F.2d 647 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1982

Newsom, of a decision of the Veterans Administration Board of Contract Appeals (board). 1 The board found that certain parts of the contract for hospital improvements were patently ambiguous and that, having failed to consult … Co. v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 1, 6 , 314 F.2d 501 , 504 (1963); Blount Bros. Constr. Co. v. United States, 171 Ct. Cl. 478, 495-96 , 346 F.2d 962, 971-72 (1965). See Beacon Constr. Co. v.

Gulf & Western Industries, Inc. v. United States

671 F.2d 1322 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 24, 1982

The short of it is that, without regard to Judge Grossbaum’s actual bias or prejudice, the Board decision of which he was the author cannot stand. *9 V. … United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., 384 U.S. 424 (1966); United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U.S. 709 (1963); Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 226 Ct.

Edward R. Marden Corporation v. The United States

442 F.2d 364 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1971

Accordingly, in Len Co. & Assoc. v. … In Luria Bros. & Co. v.

Bogis

221 Ct. Cl. 833 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1979

The Correction Board denied relief and plaintiff sued in this court. Because important factual issues remain unresolved, we remand the case under Rule 149 to the Correction Board for a hearing. … It may have been based on views as to the law no longer tenable since Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 285 , 594 F. 2d 804 (1979).

Odell v. United States

135 F. Supp. 539 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 8, 1955

A recent case is Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U. S. 128, 131, 132 . And in United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. … Mistretta v. United States, 128 C. Cls. 41, 45 ; Rosnick v. United States, 132 C.

Castle v. United States

17 F. Supp. 515 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1937

The Board of Tax Appeals has had before it two cases. which involved the same question which is now raised in the case at bar. These cases were Scharton v. Commissioner, 32 B.T.A. 459 , and Mitchell v. … The Board did not place its decision on the same grounds as were set forth in Hanby v. Commissioner, supra, but its decision is well reasoned.

Precision Piping, Inc. v. United States

29 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,292 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 5, 1982

Dayley v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 305, 309 (1965). In B. D. Click Co. v. United States, 225 Ct. … This argument is not open to the petitioner because it failed to raise the point before the Board. Conrac Corp. v. United States, 214 Ct. Cl. 561, 573 , 558 F.2d 994, 1000 (1977); William F. Klingensmith, Inc. v.

Project Map, Inc. v. United States

486 F.2d 1375 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 14, 1973

On the contrary, in United States v. … Eastport S.S. v. United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 210, 214 , 130 F. Supp. 333, 335 (1955). Plaintiff also contends that Dale Ingram, Inc. is contrary to the rationale of Eastport S.S. v. United States, supra, 131 Ct.

Ross Engineering Co. v. United States

127 F. Supp. 580 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1955

Paretta Contracting Co. v. United States, 109 C. Cls. 324 , Sunswick Corp. v. United States, 109 C. Cls. 772 , cert. den. 334 U. S. 827 , and Poirier & McLane Corporation v. United States, 128 C. Cls. 117 , 120 F. … be authorized except upon approval of the Board.