Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
1.47s
89 Fed. Cl. 102 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 10, 2009
United States v. … Back Pay Act — even though in the continued particular case the employee could not assert the claim before the Board.”
Cited 6 timesPublished71 Fed. Cl. 696 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 5, 2006
See Hall v. United States, 69 Fed.Cl. 51, 55 (2005) (Tucker Act jurisdiction existed over claim that USDA breached settlement agreement with African-American farmer); see also Brown v. … Board of County Commissioners, 368 U.S. 146, 150-51 , 82 S.Ct. 282 , 7 L.Ed.2d 199 (1961), the Supreme Court stated “our decisions have made it clear that the Federal Government performs no 'proprietary' functions” and that
Cited 23 timesPublished63 Fed. Cl. 292 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 17, 2004
Corp. v. … Brown, 29 F.3d 611, 615 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“Extrinsic evidence ... should not be used to introduce an ambiguity where none exists.”).
Cited 4 timesPublishedTDM America, LLC v. United States
100 Fed. Cl. 485 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 16, 2011
United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 278, 281 (1985), affd, 779 F.2d 656 (Fed.Cir.1985) (citing Brown v. Pa. RR. Co., 282 F.2d 522, 526 (3d Cir.1960)). … See Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v.
Cited 14 timesPublished112 Fed. Cl. 331 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 22, 2013
United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 131 S.Ct. 1723, 1727 (2011). … The United States Court of Federal Claims is precluded from exercising its jurisdiction over claims against individual federal officials, see, e.g., Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublished38 Fed. Cl. 576 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 9, 1997
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 , 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). … See Brown v.
Cited 6 timesPublished127 Fed. Cl. 529 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 26, 2016
Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879,905 & n.40 (1988); accord Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. … See Brown, 105 F.3d, at 623 ("[T]he Fourth Amendment does not mandate the payment of money for its violation. . . .
Cited 2 timesPublished127 Fed. Cl. 192 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 27, 2016
Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d at 1343; Alves v. United States, 133 F.3d 1454, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir.) … Kellogg Brown & Root Servs. , Inc. v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 488, 495 (Cl.
Cited 5 timesPublishedLand Grantors v. United States
77 Fed. Cl. 686 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2007
See, e.g., Oja v. Dep't of Army, 405 F.3d 1349 (Fed.Cir.2005) (equitable tolling does not apply to judicial review of Merit Systems Protection Board decisions under 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)); Martinez v. … . § 2510 ); Jaquay v. Principi, 304 F.3d 1276, 1286 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc) (equitable tolling applies to the time limit for appealing decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals under 38 U.S.C. § 7266 (a)); Brice v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 21, 2016
Geier has been certified by the American Board of Forensic Examiners and the American Board of Forensic Medicine. (Ex. 24, pp. 2-3.) As will be detailed, below however, Dr. … ); and the National Board of Medical Examiners.
Cited 0 timesPublishedVanguard Recovery Assistance v. United States
101 Fed. Cl. 765 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 22, 2011
Servs., Inc. v. … J.V. v.
Cited 76 timesPublishedGlenn Defense Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. States
105 Fed. Cl. 541 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 17, 2012
(Board). … BSH, 75 F.3d 1577 (Fed.Cir.1996) (holding that Board of Contract Appeals should defer to agency’s best value decision as long as it is “grounded in reason ... even if the Board itself might have chosen a different bidder”
Cited 32 timesPublishedTutor-Saliba Corp. v. United States
30 Fed. Cl. 155 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 13, 1993
See Wang v. Hsu, 919 F.2d 130, 131 (10th Cir.1990); Burroughs Corp. v. Dataware Sources, Inc., 7 Fed.R.Serv.3d (Calla *157 ghan) 346, 347-48, 1987 WL 10190 (D.Mass. 1987); Yamhill Yamaha, Inc. v. … Carter v. Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1450, 1451 (Fed.Cir.1990); Liggett Group v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 4, 2025
Likewise, Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC is of no assistance to plaintiffs. Mobility Workx concerned the decisions and structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). … Wells v. United States, 420 F.3d 1343, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMacy Elevator, Inc. v. United States
105 Fed. Cl. 195 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 21, 2012
See, e.g., Brown v. … The Trails Act authorizes the Surface Transportation Board to preserve railroad corridors not currently in use for possible future rail use by converting those corridors into recreational trails. Caldwell v.
Cited 10 timesPublished40 Fed. Cl. 469 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 26, 1998
Similar accusations were made by plaintiff in Bauer v. … Berdick v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 94 , 612 F.2d 533, 537 (1979) (quoting Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 340 U.S. 558, 569 , 71 S.Ct. 408, 414 , 95 L.Ed. 534 (1951).) See also Brown v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedRig Masters, Inc. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,417 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 24, 1998
Similarly, FAR 52.248-1(e)(3) purports to preclude board or court review of disputes over VECP’s. The regulation is thus in direct conflict with the CDA and cannot stand. See Argentinas v. … See Wainwright Realty Co. v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 425, 426 (1993) (citing Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v.
Cited 9 timesPublishedRick's Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States
76 Fed. Cl. 250 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 10, 2007
Group v. … (emphasis added)); see Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.1997) (stating that Court of Federal Claims “lacks jurisdiction over tort actions against the United States”).
Cited 10 timesPublished78 Fed. Cl. 211 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 9, 2007
See also Brown v. United States, 35 Fed.Cl. 258, 268-69 (1996) (citing cases from other federal courts supporting the same proposition), aff'd, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir.1997). C. … "[T]he requirement that a party have ‘standing’ to appear before a court is intended to ensure that the court is deciding a real 'case or controversy.' ’’ Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243 (Fed.Cir. 1996).
Cited 25 timesPublishedBarron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States
53 Fed. Cl. 310 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 23, 2002
See Glass v. … See also Grady-Gould Watershed Improvement Dist. v. Transamerica Ins.
Cited 7 timesPublished
Ask Donna