Case law

Cramp Shipbuilding Co. v. United States

122 Ct. Cl. 72 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 8, 1952

See Martin Wunderlich v. United States, 117 C. Cls. 92, 212 , reversed on other grounds 342 U. S. 98 ; McWilliams Dredging Co. v. United States, 118 C. Cls. 1, 16 , for *98 discussion and citations. … The plaintiff urges that a contractor with the Government is not prejudiced by his failure to take a vain appeal, citing United States v. Smith, 256 U. S. 11 . In United States v. Blair, 321 U.

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.

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.

Charles H. Blanchard, Jr., Doing Business as Blanchard Construction Company v. The United States

347 F.2d 268 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1965

Therefore, the administrative appeals board decision lacks finality. See W. H. Edwards Eng’r Corp. v. United States, 161 Ct.Cl. 322 (1963) and Beacon Construction Co. v. … There was here no testimony submitted to the Board or any Board hearing in the usual sense.

Antonio A. Versaci v. The United States

403 F.2d 246 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 15, 1968

McGiven v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl. 920 (1968). Cf. Brozik v. … As was stated in Beckham v.

Spokane Valley General Hospital, Inc. v. United States

688 F.2d 771 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 8, 1982

The district court overturned the Board’s decision because it was "unsupported by substantial evidence” and was "erroneous in its legal conclusions.” Spokane Valley General Hospital, Inc. v. Harris, No. … Louis University v.

Carl M. Halvorson, Inc. v. United States

461 F.2d 1337 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 16, 1972

Co. v. United States, 190 Ct. … Co. v. United States, supra, 190 Ct.

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.

Finn v. United States

548 F.2d 340 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 26, 1971

This board recommended a 50 percent disability rating. … Unterberg v. United States, supra; Merson v. United States, supra; Stephens v. United States, supra.

Richard H. Bridgman v. The United States

399 F.2d 186 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 17, 1968

(see, e. g., Oleson v. … Congress provided these boards “to correct an error or remove an injustice” ( 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (1964); see Ole-son v.

Quailes v. United States

25 Cl. Ct. 659 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1992

In military pay matters, the court reviews a plaintiff’s case “through the prism of a correction board.” Cohn v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 778, 789 (1988). … Procedurally this case is similar to Yount v.

Middleton v. United States

175 Ct. Cl. 786 · United States Court of Claims · May 13, 1966

In the second suit, Egan v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 1 , 158 F. … Nathanson v. NLRB 344 U.S. 25, 27 (1952) ; Social Security Bd. v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 364-65 (1946) ; NLRB v.

Allied Contractors, Inc. v. United States

176 Ct. Cl. 1095 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1966

After a ruling by this court that, pursuant to United States v. … In a case in which it is determined that United States v.

Davis v. United States

180 Ct. Cl. 20 · United States Court of Claims · May 12, 1967

Repeatedly, this court has held that it may freely reexamine questions of law as their determination by the Board is not binding upon the plaintiff nor binding upon this court. E.g., Natus Corp. v. … a review of the entire record, Midwest Spray & Coating Co. v.

Steen v. United States

141 F. Supp. 946 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1956

This case differs from the case of Updike v. United States, 132 C. … In the case at bar, the Secretary of the Army approved neither the finding of the Retiring Board nor the Physical Evaluation Board.

Russell

652 F.2d 68 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 30, 1981

Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm’n Co., 411 U.S. 182, 187, 188 (1973); Jones v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 138 , 617 F.2d 233 (1980). … Compare Alers v. United States, 224 Ct. Cl. 560 , 633 F.2d 559 (1980); Wynne v. United States, 220 Ct.Cl. 647 (1979); Pascal v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 183 , 543 F.2d 1284 (1976); Grover v. United States, 200 Ct.

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.

The Len Company and Associates v. The United States

385 F.2d 438 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 13, 1967

United States, 59 Ct.Cl. 650, 654 (1924) ; Lovell v. United States, 61 Ct.Cl. 756, 761-762 (1926) ; Griffiths v. United States, 74 Ct.Cl. 245, 256-257 (1932) ; Pope v. … Armstrong & Co. v. United States, 98 Ct.Cl. 519, 530-531 (1943) ; Virginia Eng’r Co. v. United States, 101 Ct.Cl. 516, 533 (1944) ; Fox Valley Eng’r Inc. v.

Leesona Corp. v. United States

599 F.2d 958 · United States Court of Claims · May 16, 1979

The award granted by Trial Judge Browne punishes the U.S. … Trial Judge Browne cited our opinion in Tektronix, Inc. v. United States, supra, as authority for the award of both items.

Tester Corp. v. United States

28 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,288 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1981

The Board correctly found that plaintiffs refusal to perform and abandonment of its duties were adequate bases for termination for default. See American Dredging Company v. United States, 207 Ct.Cl. 1010, 1013 (1975). … Tapper v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 34 , 611 F.2d 354 (1979).