Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
0.84s
75 Fed. Cl. 483 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 20, 2007
The Assistance Agreement further stated that “[f]or purposes of reports to the Bank Board ... and all Bank Board regulations applicable to River Valley, Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000) of the cash contributions made under … The Assistance Agreement also provided that: For purposes of reports to the Bank Board ... and all Bank Board regulations applicable to the ACQUIRING ASSOCIATION, $5,000,000 of the cash contribution made under this § 6(a)
Cited 5 timesPublished118 Fed. Cl. 139 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 10, 2014
The Board approved Bannum’s requested special exception at the Board’s June 11, 2013 meeting. Compl. ¶ 8; AR at 808-09, 824. … V.
Cited 1 timesPublished84 Fed. Cl. 472 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2008
See Todd v. … See Doe v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedPerkin-Elmer Corp. v. United States
47 Fed. Cl. 672 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 26, 2000
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed.Cir.1987). … Spandome Corp. v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 626, 630 (1995) (citing United Techs. Corp. v. United States, 27 Fed.Cl. 393, 398 (1992)).
Cited 2 timesPublishedSiemietkowski v. United States
86 Fed. Cl. 193 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 25, 2009
Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1227 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Haselrig v. United States, 333 F.3d 1354, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2003)). The focal point of the review is the administrative record as presented to the board. … United States v.
Cited 8 timesPublishedComprehensive Health Services, Inc. v. United States
70 Fed. Cl. 700 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2006
Co. v. … Eng’rs v.
Cited 10 timesPublished38 Fed. Cl. 532 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 1997
The present case is similar to McEniry v. … Austin v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. at 723 .
Cited 26 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 27, 2020
Sand & Gravel Co. v. … In reviewing the determinations of a military corrections board, a plaintiff must demonstrate “by cogent and clearly convincing evidence,” Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublished88 Fed. Cl. 748 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 15, 2008
Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1986). This court “will not disturb the decision of the corrections board unless it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.” … .”); Kirwin v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 497, 502 (1991) (same); de Cicco v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 224 , 677 F.2d 66 , (1982) (same). “Thus, the burden of overturning a military board decision is a heavy one.”
Cited 1 timesPublished44 Fed. Cl. 202 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 15, 1999
See Doe v. … See Dayley v.
Cited 6 timesPublished66 Fed. Cl. 206 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2005
See Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449 , 1457 (Fed.Cir. 1997). Such is the case with Mrs. … Ltd. v. United States, 133 F.3d 874, 879 (Fed.Cir. *210 1998); Brown Park, 127 F.3d at 1450-52. However, she chose not to do so.
Cited 3 timesPublishedAssociated Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. United States
42 Fed. Cl. 867 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 5, 1999
In Social Security Board v. … See, e.g., Mayberry v. United States, 151 F.3d 855, 860 (8th Cir.1998); Hemelt v. United States, 122 F.3d 204, 209 (4th Cir.1997); Lane Processing Trust v. United States, 25 F.3d 662, 665 (8th Cir.1994).
Cited 4 timesPublishedAdmiral Financial Corp. v. United States
57 Fed. Cl. 418 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2003
Bank v. United States, 245 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed.Cir. 2001). … V.
Cited 10 timesPublishedLewis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2020
See Brown v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-426V, 2012 WL 952268, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. … Djalilian is board-certified in otolaryngology and neurotology. Although acknowledging that Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublished104 Fed. Cl. 801 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2012
A promotion board ultimately has discretion to decide whether to promote or not promote plaintiff: *817 A board may not recommend an officer for promotion unless a majority of the members of that board, after consideration … Decisions of boards for correction of military records are subject to review under the APA. See Frizelle v. Slater, 111 F.3d 172, 176 (D.C.Cir.1997).
Cited 12 timesPublished75 Fed. Cl. 615 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 1, 2007
In May 2002, plaintiff filed an application for correction of his military records with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR” or “Correction Board”). Id. at 578-908. … Brown v. Miss. Valley State Univ., 311 F.3d 328 , 333 n. 5 (5th Cir.2002); see also Price ex rel. Price v. W. Res., Inc., 232 F.3d 779, 783 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Rule 56(f) does not operate automatically.
Cited 21 timesPublishedMicrodyne Outsourcing, Inc. v. United States
72 Fed. Cl. 230 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 11, 2006
Intervenors rely on United States v. Int’l Bus. Mach. … This is not a mere technicality; *234 it is the predicate of the board’s right to intervene in governmental procurements.
Cited 17 timesPublished60 Fed. Cl. 254 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 6, 2004
Judge Brown clearly stated that “plaintiff can refile in the [Court of Federal Claims], without penalty, should she choose to do so.” Id. at 38. … P’ship v.
Cited 16 timesPublishedScott Timber Co. v. United States
65 Fed. Cl. 131 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 14, 2005
Bishop v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 281, 286 (1992) (quoting Circle K Corp. v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 659, 664-65 (1991)). … As articulated by the Court of Claims in John Reiner & Co. v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 17, 2022
Johnson v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 267, 270 (2011) (“In reviewing a correction board’s decision, the Court does not sit as ‘a super correction board.’”) (citing Skinner v. United States, 594 F.2d 824, 830 (Ct. … See Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966); Pope v. United States, 16 Cl.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna