Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
1.06s
Rosa D. Bonewell v. United States
111 Fed. Cl. 129 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 29, 2013
See Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (indicating that “review of a military corrections board is limited to the administrative record”). … Corp. v. United States, 56 Fed.
Cited 6 timesPublished52 Fed. Cl. 232 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 4, 2002
Consistent with this usage, the phrase “as a result of’ has, in various and sundry contexts, been construed to mean “caused by.” 5 Perhaps the most analogous and useful illustration of this is Brown v. … Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. at 119 , 115 S.Ct. 552 .
Cited 4 timesPublished54 Fed. Cl. 759 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 10, 2002
Co. v. United States, 932 F.2d at 895 ; see also Brown v. United States, 86 F.3d at 1563 . … . § 162.5 (a) (1987). 4 See *771 Brown v. United States, 86 F.3d at 1562 (Native American leases shall be in the form prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, citing 25 C.F.R. § 162.5 (a)).
Cited 17 timesPublishedHannon v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 3, 2024
Moran v. … On January 10, 2022, petitioner presented to orthopedist David Brown, M.D., and she rated her left arm pain at 1/10. Ex. 8 at 3.
Cited 0 timesPublished52 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.
Reversed on other grounds by Knight v. United States, 65 F. App'x 286 (2003)Cited 2 timesPublished50 Fed. Cl. 91 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 8, 2001
See Wells v. … See Cappella v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedBrickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United States
77 Fed. Cl. 624 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2007
Fanning, Phillips & Molnar v. West, 160 F.3d 717, 720 (Fed.Cir.1998); Booth v. United States, 990 F.2d 617, 620 (Fed.Cir.1993); United States v. … JAPAN RAINBOW, II MV, 334 F.3d 439, 444 (5th Cir.2003), yet the court looked to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals for guidance and cited several Board decisions with approval. Id. at 1372-73.
Cited 2 timesPublished32 Fed. Cl. 265 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 2, 1994
In Keef v. … In Birt v.
Disagreed with in part by Lee v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 530 (1995)Cited 5 timesPublishedPrincipal 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.
Cited 13 timesPublished52 Fed. Cl. 105 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 13, 2002
United States Office of Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board: Authorization, Pub.L. No. 103-424, § 9 (c), 108 Stat. 4361 , 4366 (1994) (the 1994 amendment). … FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 , 120 S.Ct. 1291 , 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) (internal citations omitted).
Cited 14 timesPublished1st Home Liquidating Trust v. United States
76 Fed. Cl. 731 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 11, 2007
Ohio v. … In Glass v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedFifth Third Bank v. United States
52 Fed. Cl. 637 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2002
Home Loan Bank rather than with a Bank Board official geographically located at the Federal Home Loan Bank Board in Washington, no contract can exist per se because no Principal Supervisory Agent had authority to make such … Winstar v.
Cited 18 timesPublished61 Fed. Cl. 44 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 25, 2004
See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.1997). … .); Cottrell v. United States, 42 Fed.Cl. 144, 148 (1998) (“The Tucker Act limits the court’s jurisdiction to non-tort money suits against the United States ....”); see also Brown v.
Cited 26 timesPublished33 Fed. Cl. 560 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 14, 1995
In United States v. … Olin Jones Sand Co. v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 741 , 744, 1980 WL 13211 (1980); Northern Helex Co. v.
Cited 2 timesPublished63 Fed. Cl. 424 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 30, 2004
The referenced section 7701(g)(1) of the CSRA provides in relevant part: Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Board, or an administrative *428 law judge or other employee of the Board designated to … Worthington v.
Cited 16 timesPublishedValles-Prieto v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 27, 2022
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part). The Court reviews decisions of military correction boards based upon the administrative record. Walls v. … Pertinent to a determination of plaintiff’s unfitness, the Board should have considered this information. See Hassay v. United States, 150 Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedNathan T. Meidl v. United States
108 Fed. Cl. 570 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 25, 2013
See FW/PBS, Inc. v. … A plaintiff must “show by cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the board’s decision failed by at least one of those standards. Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Cited 9 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 2025
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The claims for criminal identity theft and mail tampering must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. … Under that scheme, appeals are considered first by an administrative entity, the Board of Veterans Appeals (“BVA”).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished44 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.
Cited 17 timesPublished98 Fed. Cl. 703 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 16, 2011
Colonel Dubsky relies on the “first competent board rule” to suggest that his claims did not accrue until the AFBCMR issued a ruling. See Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218 (Fed.Cir.2005). … See Young v. United States, 529 F.3d 1380, 1385 (Fed.Cir.2008) (citing United States v.
Cited 2 timesPublished
Ask Donna