Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
1.25s
51 Fed. Cl. 174 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 6, 2001
Also in 1993, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the Board responsible for review of JMD’s decisions, adopted what it defined as a “significantly narrower” standard for defining LEO credit. See Bingaman v. … Brown, which the Nasem court found inadequate to show that the agency had acted in a judicial capacity. 595 F.2d at 807 .
Cited 2 timesPublished73 Fed. Cl. 532 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 13, 2006
Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 835 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). … Id. at 753 (citing Brown, 425 U.S. at 829 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 ).
Cited 29 timesPublishedAmerican Airlines, Inc. v. United States
40 Fed. Cl. 712 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 17, 1998
Boarded Meals The union contracts also required American to provide meals on board (“boarded *716 meals” or “on-board meals”) for pilots and flight engineers on flights of certain lengths and at certain times of day. … See. e.g., Jeppsen v.
Cited 5 timesPublished102 Fed. Cl. 82 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 5, 2011
Ladd v. … V. .
Cited 11 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 timesPublishedInter-Coastal Xpress, Inc. v. United States
49 Fed. Cl. 531 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2001
No. 104-88, § 101 , 109 Stat. 803 , 804. 2 The responsibilities of ICC covering motor carriers were delegated to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA). Cross v. … Id. at 75 (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 , 93 S.Ct. 1827 , 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 834 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976) (internal citations omitted)).
Cited 7 timesPublished121 Fed. Cl. 658 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 17, 2015
Brown, STB, from President, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation (Dec. 6, 2013)), but North Central Railway did not file a letter indicating its consent. On December 30, 2013, the NITU expired. … Similarly, in Loretto v.
Vacated by Caquelin v. United States, 697 F. App'x 1016 (2017)Cited 11 timesPublished98 Fed. Cl. 360 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 21, 2011
Major Freeman thereafter appealed to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR” or “the Board”) on November 1, 2007, requesting that the Board rescind the order terminating his aviation service and restore … Fala Corp. v.
Cited 11 timesPublishedMacy Elevator, Inc. v. United States
97 Fed. Cl. 708 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 7, 2011
Id. at 398 (citing Brown v. Penn Central Corp., 510 N.E.2d 641, 643 (Ind.1987); Ross, Inc. v. … See Brown, 510 N.E.2d at 643 ; Hoffman v. Zollman, 49 Ind.App. 664 , 97 N.E. 1015 (1912). When interpreting a deed, the object of deed construction is to ascertain the intent of the parties to a deed.
Cited 59 timesPublishedBlack Butte Coal Co. v. United States
27 Fed. Cl. 699 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 1, 1993
Dissatisfied, plaintiff appealed to the DOI Board of Appeals (“Board” or “IBLA”). … Another decision supporting our analysis of the reclamation fee is Amax Coal Co. v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 819 P.2d 825, 830 (Wyo.1991).
Vacated on other grounds by Black Butte Coal Company v. The United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant, 14 F.3d 612 (1993)Cited 5 timesPublishedFirst Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. v. United States
75 Fed. Cl. 263 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2007
Bank v. … In D & N Bank v.
Reversed on other grounds by First Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. v. United States, 644 F.3d 1367 (2011)Cited 14 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 9, 2015
Claims regarding a service member's entitlement to retirement pay first accrue when "the appropriate military board either ... denies the claim or refuses to hear it." Chambers v. … Young v. United States, 529 F.3d 1380, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing United States v.
Cited 0 timesPublished106 Fed. Cl. 586 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 23, 2012
Co. v. … Plaintiff relies on Brown v. United States, 630 F.Supp. 57, 57-60 (M.D.Tenn.1985), for that court's analysis of whether an illness rises to the level of reasonable cause. Pl.’s Opp. at 10-11.
Cited 5 timesPublished32 Fed. Cl. 797 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 27, 1995
See Cole v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 1018 (1992). On March 10, 1994, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence of error or injustice, and denied plaintiffs request for reconsideration. … If the Medical Board believes the member is unfit for military service, the case will be reviewed by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).
Cited 5 timesPublishedBataco Industries, Inc. v. United States
39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,569 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 9, 1993
Plaintiff points out that the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA or board) liberally construed the EPA clause to allow a contractor to obtain price adjustments which would have been lost had the board strictly … In that case, the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA or board) applied the Hoel-Steffen doctrine to a price adjustment clause in a contract for polyethylene plastic bags. Id. at 117,089.
Cited 40 timesPublishedCardiosom, L.L.C. v. United States
117 Fed. Cl. 526 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 19, 2014
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). … The contract language at issue in Admiral Financial is as follows: All references to regulations of the [Federal Home Loan Bank Board (Bank Board)] or the [Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation
Cited 2 timesPublishedMcDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States
41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,045 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 22, 1997
Ellett Construction Co. v. … The board denied the Government’s motion.
Reversed on other grounds by McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross and General Dynamics Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross v. United States, 182 F.3d 1319 (1999)Cited 7 timesPublished80 Fed. Cl. 336 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2008
See Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 214 , 113 S.Ct. 2035 , 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.1997). … See also Brown & Williamson, Ltd. v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 413 , 688 F.2d 747 (1982) (jurisdiction to allow interest on a tax refund pursuant to tax treaty that created right to retroactive refund of taxes). .
Cited 18 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 3, 2021
See, e.g., Tazian v. Cline, 686 N.E.2d 95, 96, 98 (Ind. 1997) (construing a deed executed in 1873 and not mentioning the railroad company’s charter); Brown v. Penn Cent. … Co. v.
Cited 0 timesPublished98 Fed. Cl. 671 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 23, 2011
Id. at *3 (citing Brown v. … Nothing in Brown v.
Cited 2 timesPublished
Ask Donna