Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
0.78s
Scott 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 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 18, 2022
Under the CSRA, an employee subject to an adverse personnel action is “entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board [(“MSPB”)].” 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d). … Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d. 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Cited 0 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 timesPublished72 Fed. Cl. 432 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 6, 2006
V. Other Evidence On June 12, 1998, the State Board of Adjustment for Alabama awarded Mr. Bice $50,000 for the death of his wife. … Edison Co. v.
Cited 12 timesPublishedSacramento Municipal Utility District v. United States
70 Fed. Cl. 332 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 2006
See Todd v. … See Koby v.
Reversed in part, on other grounds by Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. United States, 293 F. App'x 766 (2008)Cited 37 timesPublished91 Fed. Cl. 664 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 24, 2010
In Home Savings of America v. … See Bath Iron Works Corp. v. United States, 20 F.3d 1567, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (citing Lopez v.
Cited 8 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 18, 2022
To be supported by “substantial evidence,” the Board’s decision must be based on “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. … Cl. at 378; Sawyer, 930 F.2d at 1581 (“[I]n disability cases either the review boards or the correction board is competent to make a disability determination in the first instance.”); Patterson v. United States, 44 Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedYankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,396 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 29, 1998
of Contract Appeals (Board). … Co. v.
Cited 18 timesPublishedAtkins North America, Inc. v. United States
106 Fed. Cl. 491 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2012
Corp. v. … Co. v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDouglas R. Bigelow Trust v. United States
107 Fed. Cl. 490 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 19, 2012
Ten Michigan landowners brought suit against the United States alleging that they are entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for property they claim was taken when the Surface Transportation Board (STB) issued … William & James Brown & Co. v. McGran, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 479, 493 , 10 L.Ed. 550 (1840). This principle has been routinely evoked in the context of contract law. See Levy v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedFloral Art, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2021
While “a delay in the receipt of money damages may not, standing alone, justify the denial of a motion to stay proceedings[,]” Brown v. United States, 131 Fed. … Brown, 131 Fed. Cl. at 543; see also Balagna v. United States, 138 Fed.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished53 Fed. Cl. 371 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 27, 2002
Richey v. United States, 50 Fed.Cl. 3, 14 (quoting Germano v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 1446, 1459 (1992)). … See Zavislak v. United States, 29 Fed.Cl. at 531. See also Muse v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 372, 377 (1987).
Cited 1 timesPublished83 Fed. Cl. 594 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 18, 2008
Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449 , 1458 (Fed.Cir.1997). … The plaintiffs point to Brown v.
Cited 13 timesPublishedPapillon Airways, Inc. v. United States
105 Fed. Cl. 154 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 5, 2012
In Lake Mead Air, Inc. v. … In order to accommodate this volume, Pa-pillon employed a “source board.” The *160 source board was a reference tool for Papil-lon to determine the most profitable potential flight times.
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 3, 2017
If the Court finds that the board's decision was reasonable and suppmted by substantial evidence, it will not overturn the board's decision. Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). … Coutts may not "substitute their judgment for that of the military board" when reasonable minds may differ. Banerjee v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 522, 533 (2007). 1.
Cited 0 timesPublished56 Fed. Cl. 634 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 4, 2003
the Army Active Duty Board (“DAADB”). … Holley v.
Cited 4 timesPublished71 Fed. Cl. 536 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 1, 2006
Sciences v. … See also Smith v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedPueblo of San Ildefonso v. United States
35 Fed. Cl. 777 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 5, 1996
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. … See, e.g., Stephenson v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedUnited Partition Systems, Inc. v. United States
12 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 867 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 28, 2004
Corp. v. … Co. v. United States, 817 F.2d 1573 (Fed.Cir.1987); Schickler v.
Cited 24 timesPublished
Ask Donna