Case law

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. United States

7 F. Supp. 290 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 4, 1934

the Board. … Co. v. United States, 48 F.(2d) 973 , 71 Ct.

William F. Klingensmith, Inc. v. United States

505 F.2d 1257 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 20, 1974

Farwell Company, Inc. v. United States, 137 Ct. … Co. v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 1, 7 , 314 F. 2d 501 , 504 (1963).

Storey v. United States

531 F.2d 985 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1976

Cl. 392 , 450 F. 2d 1121 (1971); Unterberg v. United States, supra; Cooper v. United States, 203 Ct. … Williams v. United States, supra. We conclude that the plaintiff has failed to make such a showing in this case, and, accordingly, the decision of the Correction Board is final and is affirmed. Unterberg v.

Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc. v. United States

531 F.2d 1037 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1976

An appeal would be heard de novo by a board of contract appeals and their remedies would extend even further than to such a board. … Silliman v. United States, 101 U.S. 465 (1879); Loral Corp. v. United States, 193 Ct. Cl. 473, 482 , 434 F. 2d 1328, 1332 (1970); John Arborio, Inc. v. United States, 110 Ct. Cl. 432 , 76 F.

Gus Kraus, Doing Business as Condor MacHine Works v. The United States

366 F.2d 975 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 14, 1966

Corp. v. United States, 351 F.2d 972 , 169 Ct.Cl. 384 (1965); Tufano Contracting Corp. v. United States, 356 F.2d 535 , 174 Ct.Cl. 398 (1966). For the reasons hereinafter set out, we reject the decision of the Board. … Corp. v.

Kimmel v. United States

196 Ct. Cl. 579 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 10, 1971

Hamrick v. United States, 120 Ct. Cl. 17, 25 , 96 F. Supp. 940, 943 (1951). See also Frame v. United States, 124 Ct. Cl. 557, cert. denied, 345 U.S. 994 (1953); Thomas v. United States, 123 Ct. … See also Forshew v. United States, 151 Ct. Cl. 597 (1960); Palmer v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 376 (1957); Kilbanks v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 128 (1957); Updike v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 627 , 132 F.

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.

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.

Algonac Manufacturing Co. v. United States

428 F.2d 1241 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1970

V. D. … The Supreme Court said in Merritt v.

E.D.S. Federal Corp. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,314 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 6, 1983

United States v. Turtle Mountain Band, 222 Ct.Cl. at 8 , 621 F.2d at 521, quoting from Zdanok v. … Federal Corp. 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.

Grant v. United States

5 Ct. Cl. 71 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1869

.” *82 (1 Parsons on Contracts, 541; see, also, Munford v. Brown, 6 Cowen, 476; Dubois v. Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, 4 Wend., 291 .) … Besides, this general doctrine here enforced has been recognized by this court in the case of Fowler v. The United States, ( 3 C. Cls. R., 43 .)

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.

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.

Santa Fe, Inc. v. United States

34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,385 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 30, 1987

As we stated in Tapper & Associates v. … Maffei Building Wrecking Corp. 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.

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.

Casman v. United States

181 F. Supp. 404 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1958

United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188 . … Meyers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52; United States v. Perkins, 116 U. S. 483 . In the instant case, however, Congress restricted the power to remove.

General Dynamics Corp. v. United States

671 F.2d 474 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 10, 1982

Arizona v. United States, 216 Ct. Cl. at 235 , 575 F.2d at 863 . … V. CONCLUSION To recapitulate, we affirm the Board’s ruling that the reasonable-cost termination provision of the contract applies.

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.