Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
2.35s
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 5, 2023
HARRISON, * * Plaintiff, * * v. … The government asserts that counsel for Plaintiff “has reviewed the board’s decision and agrees that the board’s decision granted full relief and provides a satisfactory basis for disposition of this case.” Id. at 1.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedKansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 10, 2019
Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The doctrine, however, does not apply when a plaintiff “really only point[s] to one alleged wrong by (Fed. … Co. v.
Cited 0 timesPublished40 Fed. Cl. 895 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 2, 1998
Silberman was made Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of YAG as well. … See, e.g., Crocker v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedEmerald Coast Finest Produce Co. v. United States
79 Fed. Cl. 466 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 26, 2007
Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445, 447 (Fed.Cir.1996); see also Gentex Corp. v. … of directors, if the board of directors proposes and its shareholders of record approve the proposed transaction.
Cited 5 timesPublishedNorth Slope Technical, Ltd. v. United States
38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,458 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 31, 1992
Co. v. … In Container Company v.
Cited 5 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2019
June 13, 2017); Conerly v. United States 137 Fed. Cl. 140, 142 (2018); Fuentes v. United States 100 Fed. Cl. at 92; Brown v. United States 76 Fed. Cl. 762, 763 (2007); Haves v. United States 71 Fed. … Cir. 1998); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir.), Lh'g denied (Fed. Cir. 1997); Goiden Pac. Bancorp v. United States, 15 F.3d 1066, 1070 n.8 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBank United of Texas FSB v. United States
50 Fed. Cl. 645 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 29, 2001
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. … See Bank United of Texas v. United States, 49 Fed.Cl. 1 , 2 n. 1.
Reversed on other grounds by Bank United v. States, 80 F. App'x 663 (2003)Cited 22 timesPublishedStockton East Water District v. United States
72 Fed. Cl. 141 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 25, 2006
The California State Water Resources Control Board, in May 1995, changed the salinity standard from 500 parts per million to 0.7 electrical conductivity from April to August, and 1.0 electrical conductivity from September … Water Dist. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedR.P. Wallace, Inc. v. United States
63 Fed. Cl. 402 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 15, 2004
Co. v. … Instead, like the Board, it applied the apportionment rule, affirming the Board’s decision to award the government liquidated damages for certain days of delay caused by the contractor, while attributing other days of delay
Criticized by George Sollitt Construction Co. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 229 (2005)Cited 15 timesPublished55 Fed. Cl. 8 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 23, 2002
Interwest Constr. v. Brown, 29 F.3d 611, 616 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“By definition, an ‘obvious void’ or glaring omission can never be a latent ambiguity.”). … United States, 133 F.3d 1454, 1459 (Fed.Cir.1998); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.) reh’g denied (1997); Golden Pacific Bancorp v.
Cited 8 timesPublishedCoast Professional, Inc. v. United States
120 Fed. Cl. 727 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 2015
Cir. 2008); Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 764, 769 (2014); Outdoor Venture Corp. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 146, 152 (2011); Chapman Law Firm v. United States, 63 Fed. … Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., 117 Fed. Cl. at 769; see also Gov’t Tech. Servs., 90 Fed.
Vacated by Coast Professional, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.3d 1349 (2016)Cited 5 timesPublishedUnited States Enrichment Corporation v. United States
121 Fed. Cl. 532 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 3, 2015
Grp., Inc. v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 607, 612 (2014). … Once a claim is submitted to the CO, a contractor must wait for a final decision denying the claim before the contractor may file an appeal before the appropriate board of contract appeals or in this court.
Cited 9 timesPublished109 Fed. Cl. 223 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 7, 2013
On June 9, 2003, Union Pacific filed a petition for exemption with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), 2 seeking permission to abandon a segment on the eastern portion of the Railroad Line, specifically, that between … 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 7 timesPublishedDews v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 20, 2015
Filed: March 30, 2015 For Publication ************************************* BRITTENY DEWS, by Her Mother and * Next Friend, DAWN BROWN … See also Kegler v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 13-544V, 2014 WL 1568837 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. March 28, 2014); Amin v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 13-300V, 2013 WL 5994685 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 16, 2013); Browning v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAdvanced Materials, Inc. v. United States
40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,868 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 1995
Salsbury Indus. v. United States, 905 F.2d 1518, 1521 (Fed.Cir.1990). Torncello, 681 F.2d at 771-72 , overruled Colonial Metals Co. v. … Modern Systems Technology Corp. v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedFru-Con Construction Corp. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,399 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 30, 1998
Co. v. … Maurer, Inc. v.
Cited 6 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 8, 2018
See Christensen v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 625, 629 (2005) (citing Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 73-74 (2d Cir. 1982) (Friendly, J.)) … Bailey v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 550, 555 (2016) (citing Berkley v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 675, 711 (2004)).
Cited 0 timesPublishedSecuriforce International America, LLC v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 386 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 12, 2016
See Goodeagle v. United States, 124 Fed. … KBR is Kellogg Brown & Root. It just means using -- the Army used Kellogg Brown & Root to deliver fuel.
Cited 11 timesPublished41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,015 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 15, 1996
V, § 1 provides: The Board of Directors may authorize any officer or officers, agent or agents, to enter into any contract or execute and deliver any instrument in the name of and on behalf of the Corporation, and such authority … See Sadelmi Joint Venture v.
Cited 23 timesPublishedHi-Shear Technology Corp. v. United States
53 Fed. Cl. 420 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 29, 2002
The board found that there was no central point to obtain accurate predictions of orders by ordering agencies. … The Board found that the vice president’s statements were unpei’suasive and disregarded them. Id.
Cited 20 timesPublished
Ask Donna