Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
0.91s
133 Fed. Cl. 607 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 18, 2017
Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Finally, the plaintiff must overcome the presumption of regularity which attaches to actions of the military and military records correction boards. … Armstrong v. United States, 205 Ct.
Cited 4 timesPublishedJeanpierre, IV v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2025
or PTSD. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h); Doyon v. … V. Discussion Military review boards “are obligated to examine relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for their decisions.” Rominger v. United States, 72 Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublished39 Fed. Cl. 688 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 1998
Engels v. … A special selection board, however, may only be convened for officers on the active duty list. Etheredge v. United States, 8 Cl.
Cited 2 timesPublishedHolihan v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
45 Fed. Cl. 201 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 14, 1999
Brown, 1989 WL 250117 , at *15-16. Upon review, the United States Claims Court agreed with the special master that Brown failed to prove entitlement and specifically declined to disturb this finding. Brown v. … While the Brown and Wasson cases are not binding on this court, Schwenk v.
Cited 7 timesPublished53 Fed. Cl. 111 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2002
Porter v. … v.
Cited 5 timesPublished123 Fed. Cl. 277 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 2015
But see Honig v. … Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Nevertheless, the Court of Federal Claims and other Article I courts traditionally have applied the “case or controversy” justiciability doctrines. See id.; Anderson v.
Cited 7 timesPublished128 Fed. Cl. 203 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2016
11 board . . . .” … a disability board prior to discharge.”
Cited 35 timesPublished106 Fed. Cl. 112 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 23, 2012
Murphy, 993 F.2d at 873 ; see King v. … of the Board.
Cited 12 timesPublished134 Fed. Cl. 380 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 13, 2017
See Soriano v. … First, there are certain “exceptional circumstances where the court may consider new evidence that was not before the corrections board,” Miller v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 717, 730 (2015) (citing Metz v.
Cited 6 timesPublished118 Fed. Cl. 420 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 11, 2014
See Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. … Def.’s Cross-Mot. at 13 (citing Groves v. United States, 30 Fed.
Cited 3 timesPublished69 Fed. Cl. 299 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 2006
then concluded that an improperly constituted Board of Inquiry error is not jurisdictional in nature, relying on Wolfe v. … In Evensen [v.
Cited 8 timesPublished92 Fed. Cl. 776 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 10, 2010
Kirwin v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 497, 503 (1991) (quoting Dzialo v. United States, 5 Cl.Ct. 554, 561 (1984)). … This court does not serve as a “super correction board.” Van Cleave III, 70 Fed.Cl. at 678 (citing Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 322 , 594 F.2d 824, 829 (1979)).
Cited 46 timesPublished114 Fed. Cl. 590 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 28, 2014
. § 1491(a)(1)); see also, e.g., Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a); Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 214 (1993)). Mr. … Brown, 105 F.3d at 623 (citing L’Enfant Plaza Properties, Inc. v. United States, 227 Fed. Cl. 1 (1981)).
Cited 8 timesPublished119 Fed. Cl. 133 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 4, 2014
United States v. … IO military board is competent if it is "statutorily authorized" to hear the claim. See Real v. United States, 906 F.2d 1557, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Cited 61 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 27, 2026
Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Moreover, the Court presumes that a board’s actions are valid and performed “according to the regulations and considered all of [plaintiff’s] records.” Melendez Camilo v. … See TServe Alliance, Inc. v. United States, 122 F.4th 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Keene Corp. v.
Cited 0 timesPublished41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,003 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 1996
Blakeslee & Sons, Inc. v. … Westerhold v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 172, 174 (1993). See Beauchamp Constr. Co. v.
Cited 32 timesPublished65 Fed. Cl. 449 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 12, 2005
The plaintiff has already presented this issue to the ASBCA in Board Case No. 54205, and to the Federal Circuit in Zoeller v. Brownlee, 113 Fed.Appx. 390 . … Brown v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 31, 41 (1983), aff'd, 741 F.2d 1374 (Fed.Cir. 1984); see also United Techs. Corp. v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 189 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed.Cir.1999).
Cited 7 timesPublishedKeith A. Houghtling v. United States
114 Fed. Cl. 149 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 23, 2013
Defendant cites the opinion of our predecessor court in Cochran v. … The fact that a reasonable person might have reached a different conclusion is insufficient to overturn the decision of a board. Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Cited 12 timesPublishedKeith L. Keller v. the United States 0
113 Fed. Cl. 779 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 6, 2013
Plaintiff’s burden is to show by “‘cogent and clearly convincing evidence’” that the decision of the board fails this standard. Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (quoting Dorl v. … Plaintiff must also overcome the presumption of regularity which attaches to the actions of the board. See, e.g., Melendez Camilo v. United States, 642 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed.
Cited 8 timesPublishedBrown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 22, 2018
, Petitioner, v. … See generally Beck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna