Case law

Burch v. United States

99 Fed. Cl. 377 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 10, 2011

See Black v. … See Henke v.

Williams v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 91 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 8, 2001

See Wells v. … See Cappella v.

Childers v. United States

81 Fed. Cl. 693 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2008

United States, 216 Fed.Appx. 977 (Fed.Cir.2007); Garcia v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 247, 254 (1998). The United States Court of Federal Claims does not sit as a “super correction board.” Skinner v. … Judicial review of a correction board should not be an opportunity for courts to substitute their judgment for that of the military board when reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions. See Sanders v.

Principal Life Insurance v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 144 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 17, 2006

Section 508C.9(1) provides that “the board of directors shall assess the member insurers ... at the time and for the amounts the board finds necessary.” … Co. v.

Sutton v. United States

65 Fed. Cl. 800 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 13, 2005

See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573, 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Therefore, if the basis for the Government’s action is not disputed, the Due Process Clause is not implicated. … Guerra chose not to appeal Ms decision to either the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, and instead sought an injunction in the district court.

Nishitani v. United States

42 Fed. Cl. 733 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 29, 1999

See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Zucker v. United States, 758 F.2d 637, 639 (Fed.Cir.1985); Cal-Almond, Inc. v. … See Orloff v.

Technical College of the Low Country v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2019

V. … Brown v. Hendricks, 45 S.E.2d 603, 606 (S.C. 1947). As Mr. Matthews notes, access—or lack thereof— bears upon the highest and best use of land. PX 1.A at 38-39.

Grant v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 10, 2024

However, disability retirement claims accrue, “and the statute of limitations begins to run, when ‘an appropriate military board either finally denies such a claim or refuses to hear it.’” Smalls v. … The Court notes that claims of intentional concealment by government officials sound in tort which are outside of this Court’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.

Centex Corp. v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 599 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2002

Martin, FHLBB Board Member, and Lawrence J. White, FHLBB Board Member (Dec. 16, 1988) at 1. … .”); Davis v.

Cronin v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 39 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 19, 2012

See Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 999-1000 (Fed.Cir.2006) (holding that plaintiff had waived an argument because he did not make it before a military records correction board); Doyle v. … United States, 599 F.2d 984, 1000 (Ct.Cl.1979) (holding that plaintiffs had waived an objection since they knew about and chose not to present it before a Correction Board); Spehr v.

Juanita L. Hughett v. United States

110 Fed. Cl. 680 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 15, 2013

. § 2412 (2006); v. … Motorola In Motorola, the Federal Circuit began its analysis of the prevailing party issue with a discussion of Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v.

BILOXI MARSH LANDS CORPORATION v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 10, 2026

Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997). … Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).

Naskar v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 319 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 23, 2008

Brown v. United States (Brown), 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a); Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 214 , 113 S.Ct. 2035 , 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993)). … See 39 U.S.C. § 3662 (2006); LeMay v.

Turner v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2023

Turner that he is “entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence” or “a new Board if [he] request[s] different relief.” Id. at 3. … Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va.

Hoffman v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 106 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 2012

It is well established that this court does not sit as a “super correction board,” Skinner v. United States, 594 F.2d 824, 829-30 (Ct.Cl.1979). … See Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed.Cir.2006); Barnick v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 545, 560 (2008). .

Glass v. United States

44 Fed. Cl. 73 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 15, 1999

First, the court ordered, at the end of its opinion in California Federal Bank v. … The court believes that the situation involving the four Sentry shareholders is similar to that of the investor third party beneficiaries in Castle v.

Fcn, Inc. v. United States

115 Fed. Cl. 335 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 4, 2014

On the same day, April 2, 2013, the Source Selection Evaluation Board stated that it had reached a consensus that “[a]ll Offerors response [sic] confirmed their 25 It is unclear if the Source Selection Board reviewed Mr … Moreover, as indicated above, the Source Selection Evaluation Board may not have read Mr.

Deason v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 509 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 22, 2002

Hart v. United States, 910 F.2d 815, 817 (Fed.Cir.1990) (cited with approval in Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449 , 1454 (Fed.Cir.1997)); see Caguas Cent. F.S.B. v. … Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 , 116 S.Ct. 2092 , 135 L.Ed.2d 486 (1996) (cited with approval in Brown Park Estates-Fairfield, 127 F.3d at 1454).

Dyncorp International LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2020

Aircraft Indus. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 666, 696 (2008). … USA, Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 255, 269 (2011) (“FAR § 15.404-1(b)(2) permits the government discretion in its choice of method to determine price reasonableness.”); see also Labat-Anderson Inc. v.

Knight v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 243 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 5, 2002

Elmore is acting both on behalf of the LNC Board, and on behalf of the LNC employees, despite plaintiffs’ claim that LNC acted based on its membership. See First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v. … See Hazra v.