Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
1.77s
States Roofing Corp. v. United States
70 Fed. Cl. 299 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 12, 2006
“If no appeal to the Board is taken within the ninety day statutory period set forth in section 606, the Board has no jurisdiction to hear the claim.” D.L. Braughler Co. v. … Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389, 1390 (Fed.Cir.1982)). This jurisdictional limitation may not be waived by the board. Cosmic, 697 F.2d at 1391 .
Cited 3 timesPublished94 Fed. Cl. 375 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 20, 2010
Plaintiff must overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to the actions of the correction board. See Richey v. … Defendant cites Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir. 1986); Stewart v. United States, 197 Ct.Cl. 472, 484 (1972); Wyatt v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 314, 319 (1991); and Krzeminski v.
Cited 5 timesPublished89 Fed. Cl. 111 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 16, 2009
The CPEB or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) is known as the informal evaluation board and the RPEB is known as the formal evaluation board. See SECNAVINST 1850.4B ¶¶ 701-703. The Federal Circuit in Gant v. … Martinez v.
Cited 24 timesPublishedCopar Pumice Company, Inc. v. United States
112 Fed. Cl. 515 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 18, 2013
The parties indicated at oral argument that an administrative appeal of this determination is now pending in the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”). I. The present lawsuit. … at 824; Rex Trailer Co. v.
Cited 17 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 22, 2019
In Silbaugh v. … .); Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532, 539 (1993) (The “selection of a DC is a question of the application of the law to the facts and not a question of law.”).
Cited 0 timesPublished50 Fed. Cl. 701 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 1, 2001
Small v. United States Defendant asserts that the procedures of the selection boards in this case are essentially the same as those endorsed by the Federal Circuit in Small v. … In Curtis v.
Cited 6 timesPublishedFirst Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. v. United States
89 Fed. Cl. 765 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 26, 2009
Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. … Bank, F.A. v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 4, 2025
See, e.g., Keltner v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl. 552, 564 (2020); Lancaster v. United States, No. 22-267, 2022 WL 3100430, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 4, 2022); Trace Sys. Inc. v. … correction board.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedOne Largo Metro, Llc v. United States
109 Fed. Cl. 39 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 21, 2013
Board. … Inc. v.
Cited 16 timesPublished114 Fed. Cl. 682 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 24, 2014
See Williams v. United States, 100 Fed. … See Austin v. United States, 206 Ct.
Cited 5 timesPublished61 Fed. Cl. 443 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2004
Thus, we have been instructed to decline to review promotion actions of selection boards. See, e.g., Dysart v. … (emphasis added); Stoneburner v. Secretary of the Army, 152 F.3d 485, 488 (5th Cir.1998) (“[Jludieial review of the Board’s decision is limited[.]”) (emphasis added); cf. Acquisto v.
Cited 7 timesPublishedTennessee Valley Authority v. United States
60 Fed. Cl. 665 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 2, 2004
See Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. United States, 225 F.3d 1336, 1337-40 (Fed.Cir.2000); Northern States Power Co. v. … See Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v.
Cited 37 timesPublished69 Fed. Cl. 593 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 22, 2006
I am in agreement with the recommendation of the review board---- Mr. … United States, 58 Fed.Cl. at 525 (holding plaintiffs decision to resign rather than face a court-martial voluntary); Brown v.
Cited 17 timesPublished64 Fed. Cl. 118 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 8, 2005
Case law in this Circuit has also recognized the court’s ability to review Board decisions. See Godwin v. United States, 338 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2003); Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1986); Engels v. … Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1157 (Fed.Cir.1983). Thus, because the Court of Federal Claims does not sit as a “super correction board,” Skinner v.
Cited 5 timesPublished49 Fed. Cl. 614 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 21, 2001
See Cole v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 1018, 1023 (1992); Craft v. United States, 210 Ct.Cl. 170, 179 , 544 F.2d 468 (1976). … See Baker v. United States, 127 F.3d 1081, 1087-88 (Fed.Cir.1997) (one member of the board cannot speak for all members of the board).
Cited 4 timesPublished37 Fed. Cl. 149 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 15, 1997
Small v. United States, 36 Fed.Cl. 43 (1996). On July 22,1996, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the court’s decision. … Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93 , 73 S.Ct. 534, 540 , 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953) (“[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army.”).
Cited 9 timesPublished33 Fed. Cl. 810 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 11, 1995
It is the judgement of the board president and the members of the board that those officers recommended for retention are the best qualified officers. Based on City of Richmond v. … Relying on Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 , 93 S.Ct. 1241, 1244 , 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973) (per curiam), and Sierra Club v.
Cited 3 timesPublished103 Fed. Cl. 370 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2012
Later in Adkins v. … Plaintiff also must overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to the actions of a correction board. See Richey v.
Cited 12 timesPublished35 Fed. Cl. 510 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 21, 1996
Plaintiff bears the heavy burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, de Cicco v. … When reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions in the same instance, the court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the military board. Maier v.
Cited 14 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 14, 2025
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 Chappell v. … To succeed in a challenge to a military correction board’s decision, a plaintiff must demonstrate by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Wronke v.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna