Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
1.07s
93 Fed. Cl. 212 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2010
Heisig applied precepts that had been explicated by the Court of Claims fifteen years earlier in Brown v. … However, the record-supplementation aspect of Heisig and Brown has since been overtaken in the Federal Circuit by a reliance on Florida Power & Light to require a remand to a board to consider relevant evidence that had been
Cited 18 timesPublished127 Fed. Cl. 677 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 1, 2016
The use of judgment on the administrative record is appropriate in challenges to military correction board decisions. Young v. United States, 497 F. App’x 53, 58-59 (Fed. Cir. 2012). … See Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] plaintiff may waive an argument with respect to [a non-jurisdictional] issue by not asserting it before the Board.”); Doyle v.
Cited 7 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 11, 2025
“The court does not sit as a ‘super correction board.’” King v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 272, 275 (2020) (quoting Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. at 331, 594 F.2d at 829). … .”); Van Cleave v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 674, 678–79 (2006) (While the court does not “serve as a ‘super correction board[,]’ Skinner v.
Cited 0 timesPublished127 Fed. Cl. 253 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 21, 2016
So long as the Board considered the relevant evidence and came to a reasonable conclusion, this court will not disturb the Board's decision.” Riser v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 679, 683–84 (2011) (quoting Heisig v. … The court does not sit as “a super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. at 331, 594 F.2d at 830; see also Voge v. United States, 844 F.2d 776, 782 (Fed. Cir.)
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 15, 2026
.”); Van Cleave v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 674, 678–79 (2006) (While the court does not “serve as a ‘super correction board[,]’ Skinner v. … See Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. at 303; Prestonback v. United States, 45 965 F.3d at 1368. “The court does not sit as a ‘super correction board.’” King v.
Cited 0 timesPublished97 Fed. Cl. 679 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2011
See Dumont v. … See Bannum, Inc. v.
Cited 13 timesPublished100 Fed. Cl. 259 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 4, 2011
See Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1224 (Fed.Cir.2005). Here, the July 29, 2010 decision by the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR”) denying Mr. … See Thomas v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 560 , 579 n. 5 (2000); Gay v. United States, 93 Fed.Cl. 681 (2010).
Cited 3 timesPublished107 Fed. Cl. 179 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 20, 2012
See Caldwell v. … See Stern v. Metro.
Cited 8 timesPublished119 Fed. Cl. 494 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 27, 2015
So long as the Board considered the relevant evidence and came to a reasonable conclusion, this court will not disturb the Board's decision." Riser v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl.679, 683-84 (201 1) (quoting Heisiq v. … Brown v. United States,74 Fed. Cl. 546, 550 (2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. S 1631); see also Pleasant-Bev v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 363, 368 (2011), appeal dismissed, 464 F. App'x 879 (Fed. Cr.2012).
Cited 0 timesPublished103 Fed. Cl. 274 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 2, 2012
Accordingly, we must hold that this claim of plaintiff is not one that we can decide. 685 F.2d 407, 414 (Ct.Cl.1982) (citations omitted); see also Brown v. United States, 4 Cl.Ct. 175, 179 (1983) (relying on Koster). … Koster and Brown are distinguishable from this case because (1) those cases were decided pre-Fisher, see Tippett v.
Cited 10 timesPublished88 Fed. Cl. 763 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 31, 2009
The court “ ‘will not distui’b the decision of [a] corrections board unless it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.’” Barnes v. … Sanders v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 285 , 594 F.2d 804, 811 (1979) (citations omitted). In evaluating a Board decision, the *775 court may not consider new arguments not raised before the Board. Id.
Cited 6 timesPublishedDarton Innovative Technologies, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2021
Brown, 371 F.3d 814, 817 (11th Cir. 2004))). The principle of these cases, applied to statutory changes, applies equally to regulatory changes. Tesoro Hawaii Corp. v. United States, 405 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. … V.
Cited 0 timesPublished79 Fed. Cl. 231 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 16, 2007
Humphrey v. … Brown v.
Cited 18 timesPublishedDarton Innovative Technologies, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2021
Brown, 371 F.3d 814, 817 (11th Cir. 2004))). The principle of these cases, applied to statutory changes, applies equally to regulatory changes. Tesoro Hawaii Corp. v. United States, 405 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. … V.
Cited 0 timesPublished57 Fed. Cl. 204 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2003
Murphy v. United States, 993 F.2d 871, 873 (Fed.Cir.1993). In Adkins v. … V, pp. 1-51.
Cited 6 timesPublished107 Fed. Cl. 143 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 7, 2012
Richey v. United States, 322 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2003) (explaining that a “presumption of regularity” attaches to correction board decisions); Wronke v. … V.
Cited 6 timesPublished40 Fed. Cl. 259 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 27, 1998
This board thoroughly reviewed his OMPF and found that the selection board had sufficient reason to select him under the QMP. 4. … United States: * * * Once a plaintiff has sought relief from the Correction Board, such plaintiff is bound by that board’s determination unless he can meet the difficult standard of proof that the Correction Board’s decision
Cited 23 timesPublished97 Fed. Cl. 443 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 18, 2011
.”); Van Cleave v. United States, 70 Fed.Cl. 674, 678-79 (2006) (While the court does not “serve as a ‘super correction board[,]’ Skinner v. … Roberts v. Harvey, 441 F.Supp.2d. 111, 121 (D.D.C.2006). Because the Board did not address Ms.
Cited 19 timesPublished70 Fed. Cl. 674 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 19, 2006
We do not serve as a “super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 322, 327 , 594 F.2d 824 (1979). … See, e.g., Doe v. United States, 132 F.3d 1430, 1434 (Fed.Cir.1997); Armstrong v.
Cited 41 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 13, 2015
Co. v. United States, (No. 07-157C), 105 Fed. Cl. 420 (2012) and California ex rel. Brown v. United States, (No. 07-184C), 105 Fed. … Brown v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. at 140). The Government has not “provide[d] any reason why that order may be reconsidered now.” Pl. Resp. at 11.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna