Case law

Florida Power & Light Co. v. United States

64 Fed. Cl. 37 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2005

See, e.g., United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 454 , 108 S.Ct. 668 , 98 L.Ed.2d 830 (1988) (Civil Service Reform Act preempts court’s jurisdiction to review agency’s personnel decisions); Brown v. General Servs. … . *57 On the same point, the Supreme Court in Brown Shoe (harking back to New v.

Carolina Plating Works, Inc. v. United States

102 Fed. Cl. 555 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 19, 2011

See Preseault v. … The Surface Transportation Board (STB) has exclusive authority over all the nation’s rail lines. See Chi. & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 321 , 101 S.Ct. 1124 , 67 L.Ed.2d 258 (1981).

Florence v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2016

See Brown v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-426V, 2013 WL 1790212, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 8, 2013), supplemented, No. 09-426V, 2013 WL 2350541 (Fed. Cl. … Of note, the deductions in Brown were for much smaller increments of time for file review (no more than .4 hours) when compared to the half hour and greater time increments billed in this case.

CALANDRELLA v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2026

Brown Park Estates–Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997). … Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United States, 550 F.3d 1135, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Brown Park Estates–Fairfield Dev. Co., 127 F.3d at 1456).

Metric Constructors, Inc. v. United States

44 Fed. Cl. 513 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 5, 1999

See Santa Fe Eng’rs, Inc. v. United States, 818 F.2d 856, 858 (Fed.Cir.1987); see also Orbas & Assoc. v. … See Tecom, Inc. v. United States, 732 F.2d 935, 937 (Fed.Cir.1984); SMS Data Products Group, Inc. v. United States, 19 Cl.Ct. 612, 615-16 (1990) (citing Glenn v.

Republic Savings Bank v. United States

80 Fed. Cl. 295 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 25, 2008

Bank, FSB v. … See Arizona v.

Stearns Co. v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 264 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 20, 1995

Co. v. … See, e.g., Yuba Goldfields, Inc. v. United States, 723 F.2d 884, 887 (Fed.Cir.1983); Brown v. United States, 30 Fed.Cl. 23, 25 (1993).

Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. v. United States

84 Fed. Cl. 779 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 3, 2008

R.R. v. … V.

Palmyra Pacific Seafoods, L.L.C. v. United States

80 Fed. Cl. 228 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 22, 2008

McDermott, forwarding a report compiled by a Coast Guard boarding officer who had visited Palmyra in early July 2000. … McDermott responds, “You are probably upset by Section C [of the boarding officer’s report] and Frank Sorba’s plans.

Balbach v. United States

119 Fed. Cl. 681 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 9, 2015

Affourtit v. United States, 79 Fed. … Corp. v. United States, 4 F.3d 961 , 964 (Fed.

Cook v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 62 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 21, 2002

Cook served as its controlling shareholder and president, as well as a member of its board of directors. Mr. … For example, in Finley v.

Air Land Forwarders, Inc. v. United States

38 Fed. Cl. 547 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 7, 1997

See Brown v. Sierra Nevada Memorial Miners Hosp., 849 F.2d 1186,1189 (9th Cir.1988) (consultants’ letters to agency not reports or statements of agency). … Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v.

J.E. McAmis, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 27, 2023

On September 24, 2021, SBA wrote to SBA’s COC Review Board Committee (“SBA Board”) requesting an initial review of its recommendation to grant a COC to Trade West. … On October 5, 2021, SBA’s Director of Government Contracting approved the SBA Board’s recommendation. AR 3782.

Charles F. Day & Associates, LLC. v. United States

120 Fed. Cl. 767 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 24, 2015

See Beechcraft Defense Co. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 24 (2013); Nortel Gov’t Solutions v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 243 (2008); Superior Helicopter LLC v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 181 (2007). … Cl. 554, 558 (2000) (citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1996)) (granting motion to dismiss for mootness); see also Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343, 1350 n.1 (Fed.

Adams v. United States

40 Fed. Cl. 303 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 30, 1998

Riggs v. United States, 21 Cl.Ct. 664, 681 (1990). Indeed, a perfect mesh between Title 5 and Title 29 cannot be expected or required. See Abreu v. … In addition, as the government points out, numerous statutes and regulations subject federal employees across the board to suspension for misconduct.

Kayhan Space Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2026

V. … presented to the board and determined the security risks could not be adequately mitigated.”

Lane v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 19, 2025

Moran * v. … Spivak is board-certified in internal medicine and hematology. Ex. 4 38 at 1.

Howard-Pinson v. United States

74 Fed. Cl. 551 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 18, 2006

Howard-Pinson v. Army Clemency and Parole Board, No. I:05cv1157 (E.D.Va., decided July 10, 2006) (Hilton, J.). On July 31, 2006, Mr. … See Haines v.

Paradissiotis v. United States

49 Fed. Cl. 16 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 27, 2001

Pursuant to its contractual right, HOTL installed plaintiff as a director on the board of HICL, at the time the government of Libya had majority interest in HICL. … By April 1991, the board of HICL had three Libyan members in its five-member board. These Libyan directors served contemporaneously as managers of Libyan-controlled Oilinvest.

Akanthos Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2020

The conservatorships became effective on September 6, 2008, upon each Enterprise’s board’s consent. 1st Am. … Plaintiff counters that it is an intended third-party beneficiary of implied contracts, between the FHFA and each Enterprise’s board, in which the boards consented to the conservatorships in exchange for the FHFA-C operating