Case law

Watterson Construction Co. v. United States

106 Fed. Cl. 609 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2012

Pierce v. … See Doty v.

MDB Communications, Inc. v. United States

53 Fed. Cl. 245 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 14, 2002

Furash & Co. v. United States, 252 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2001). … Defendant also contends that our opinion on this matter stands at odds with other decisions in this circuit, notably, Denkler v. United States, 782 F.2d 1003 (Fed.Cir.1986), and Aaron v.

Lucier v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 1, 2018

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Brown v. … .”); see also Brown v.

McCummings v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

27 Fed. Cl. 417 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 23, 1992

Sevier v. … In Grant v.

Meltech Corporation, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 13, 2023

See Glenn v. United States, 858 F.2d 1577, 1580–81 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Southwest Marine, Inc. v. United States, 680 F. Supp. 327, 329–30 (N.D. Ca. 1988); see, e.g., also Suffolk Constr. Co., Inc. v. Gen. Servs. … Avant Assessment, LLC v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 323, 332–33 (2017) (quoting Morse Diesel Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 801, 804 (2005) (citing Giuliani Contracting Co. v. United States, 21 Cl.

Oliver v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

133 Fed. Cl. 341 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 14, 2017

He is board-certified in neurology with a specialty in pediatric neurology, and in neurophysiology. Id. at 2. … He has been board-certified in neurology since 1982. Id. at 3. Dr.

National Data Corp. v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 24 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 23, 2001

United States v. Brown, 333 U.S. 18, 27 , 68 S.Ct. 376 , 92 L.Ed. 442 (1948) (“[n]o rule of construction necessitates our acceptance of an interpretation resulting in patently absurd consequences”). … Margolis, Chairman of the Board, Colt Industries, Inc.) (same).

Palm Beach Isles Associates v. United States

58 Fed. Cl. 657 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 5, 2003

. § 7703 (c) (1982), reviewed a Merit Systems Protection Board decision under the arbitrary or capricious standard. … At the hearing, defendant introduced a survey prepared by Brown & Phillips, Inc., Professional Surveying Services, indicating that the lake bottom area was “39.03 acres, approximately,” and that the previously identified

Martin v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2020

Harris is board certified in anatomic pathology and neuropathology and by the National Board of Medical Examiners. Harris CV at 3. … McCusker is board certified in pediatrics. Id.

Cycenas v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 12, 2015

In reference to this court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Brown v. … Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d at 624.

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States

39 Fed. Cl. 441 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 30, 1997

For example, the Merit Systems Protection Board uses the following factors to determine whether a petitioner has shown good cause for waiving the twenty-day limit for appeal: Walls v. Merit Sys. … This voting trust had a board that consisted of seven members.

Stephens v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 2023

See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (discussing how the Court of Federal Claims’ limited jurisdiction does not include relief “against others than the United States”); Brown v. … See Cooper v. United States, 771 F. App’x 997, 1000–01 (First Amendment); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623–24 (Fed Cir. 1997) (Fourth Amendment); Patterson v. United States, 218 F. App’x. 987, 988 (Fed.

Mlb Transportation, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 2025

Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, 503 F.3d at 1246; accord Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States, 728 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. … solicitation specified that the “procurement is a [SDVOSB] set-aside,” and that “[o]ffers received from concerns that are not [SDVOSB] concerns shall not be considered”); J.E.T.S., Inc, 838 F.2d at 1200-01 (affirming a Board

Nuttall v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

122 Fed. Cl. 821 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 19, 2015

Cedillo v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 617 F.3d 1328, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010). … In a supplemental brief, petitioners argued that Paluck v.

Attia v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 27, 2025

Attia appealed his discharge to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. In 2012, the board granted Mr. Attia partial relief, voided the discharge, ordered that the Army reinstate Mr. … The court remanded that case to the board, which determined that Mr. Attia was “eligible for [language pro- ficiency] payments.” Case No. 21-1203, ECF Nos. 10, 27-1 at 22. Mr.

Bevevino v. United States

87 Fed. Cl. 397 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 21, 2009

See, e.g., Wells v. United States, 420 F.3d 1343, 1345-47 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449 , 1456-57 (Fed.Cir.1997)); Beebe v. … See National Federation of Federal Employees v. Brown, 207 U.S.App.

Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States

62 Fed. Cl. 635 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 29, 2004

Looking past the unambiguous language of the contracts, the correctness of the decision to terminate is supported by numerous decisions of the boards of contract appeals. 7 These boards have found that “failure to furnish … Decisions of the boards of contract appeals are not binding on this Court, but can be persuasive where they are well reasoned and legally sound. .

Amidon, Inc. v. United States

124 Fed. Cl. 517 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 7, 2016

The Source Selection Evaluation Board completed the initial evaluation of the proposals on June 11, 2015. Id. at 236-37. … PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2004); FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424, 427 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

North Star Alaska Housing Corp. v. United States

39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,607 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 22, 1993

Williams Co. v. … The board determined that a reasonable time period for payment was anywhere from 5 to 15 days into the next month.

Judin v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 483 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 8, 1995

Vista Mfg., 131 F.R.D. at 138 (quoting Brown v. Federation of State Med. Bds. of the United States, 830 F.2d 1429, 1435 (7th Cir.1987)); Autotech Corp. v. … NSD Corp., 125 F.R.D. 464, 470 (N.D.Ill.1989) (quoting Brown, 830 F.2d at 1435 ); see, e.g., Accent Designs, Inc. v.