Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersuscfc

6,911 results

2.31s

  • Bailey v. United States

    78 Fed. Cl. 239 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 10, 2007

    Miller v. Board of Miss. … (giving as an example “fix[ing] the time of taking by an event such as the filing of an action”); see, e.g., id. at 285, 60 S.Ct. 231 (discussing Brown v.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Snelling v. United States

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 2025

    United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216 (1983); United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1987). … Cir. 2011) (noting that this Court “has no jurisdiction over criminal matters generally”); see also Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Moreno v. United States

    82 Fed. Cl. 387 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 3, 2008

    (citing Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)). In the recent Supreme Court case, John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. … Sand decision, discussed above); Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998) (finding that tolling is available against the Board of Veterans Appeals under 38 U.S.C. § 7266 (1994))).

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. United States

    44 Fed. Cl. 298 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 16, 1999

    Co. v. … Co., Inc. v.

    Cited 198 timesPublished
  • Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. United States

    95 Fed. Cl. 257 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2010

    Co. v. … That committee would advise the board, which they did. And the board concurred with our recommendation and approved the expenditure to proceed with this project. Tr. at 934.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Bath Iron Works Corp. v. United States

    38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,432 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 12, 1992

    The ECP involved the — “preparation and submission to the Navy for approval/disapproval of the design change proposal and its supporting documentation ...,” 3 2. subsequent “approval of the ECP by the Change Control Board … Shop, Inc. v.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • El v. United States

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 7, 2018

    under procedures prescribed by the Board"). … (citing Lindahl v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Phipps v. United States

    126 Fed. Cl. 674 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 26, 2016

    In February 2012, BNSF intended to abandon the 5.95-mile railroad corridor at issue and sought abandonment authorization from the United States Surface Transportation Board (STB). … (quoting Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 161 (1980) (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972))) (omission in original). In Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Scott Timber Co. v. United States

    97 Fed. Cl. 685 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 5, 2011

    Co. v. … I used a volume of 187,000 board feet which was one line above the correct volume of 144,000 board feet....

    Reversed on other grounds by Scott Timber Co. v. United States, 692 F.3d 1365 (2012)Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Roscoe v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 6, 2020

    Burns is board certified in pathology. Id. at 6. … Id.; Koehn v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Faerber v. United States

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 1, 2021

    Killip v. Off. of Pers. … See Russello v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Chichakli v. United States

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 25, 2019

    United States v. … Cir. 1995); see also Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621,623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[T]he Fourth Amendment does not mandate the payment of money for its violation."). As such, these claims must also be dismissed.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • 5860 Chicago Ridge, LLC v. United States

    104 Fed. Cl. 740 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 27, 2012

    See Bradley v. S.S. … Co., Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 513, 530 (2002); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Adams v. United States

    36 Fed. Cl. 91 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 28, 1996

    Abundis v. … Hi-Craft Clothing Co. v. NLRB, 660 F.2d 910, 914 (3d Cir.1981) (quoting NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291 , 85 S.Ct. 980, 988 , 13 L.Ed.2d 839 (1965)).

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Casa De Cambio Comdiv S.A. de C.V. v. United States

    48 Fed. Cl. 137 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2000

    See also Brown v. United States, 86 F.3d 1554, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“[t]he substantive law mandating compensation may be either express or implied, but it must be unambiguous”). … Corp. v.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Abbey v. United States

    87 Fed. Cl. 706 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 2, 2009

    Plaintiffs rely on Cobell v. … It is not necessary for the court to rely on Cobell ; indeed it may be more appropriate to consider Kleiner v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Soldevila-Cuesta v. United States

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 14, 2018

    Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); see also Volk v. United States, 111 Fed. … The regulation also addresses referrals to a medical evaluation board (“MEB”) and a physical evaluation board (“PEB”) and provides, in relevant part, that: Soldiers with conditions listed in this chapter who do not

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation v. United States

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 10, 2021

    Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345,1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2004). … Marine (ASIA), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Bowman Construction Company v. United States

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 14, 2021

    A contractor may appeal a contracting officer’s final decision either at the United States Court of Federal Claims within 12 months of issuance of the decision or at the appropriate board of contract appeals within 90 days … Co. v. United States, 6 Cl.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Cangas v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 25, 2024

    CANGAS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 25, 2024 v. … Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1 On February 21, 2023, Jennifer M.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.