Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
0.37s
98 Fed. Cl. 171 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2011
Plaintiffs 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. … However, “ ‘when a correction board fails to correct an injustice clearly presented in the record before it, it is acting in violation of its mandate.’ ” Roth v.
Cited 13 timesPublished34 Fed. Cl. 347 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 1995
See Scharf v. Department of the Air Force, *353 710 F.2d 1572, 1574-75 (Fed.Cir.1983); Taylor v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 86, 92 , 591 F.2d 688, 692 (1979); Christie v. … It is also recognized by this court that resort to a correction board is permissive and does not toll the statute of limitations. Sanders v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 573, 575 (1995); D'Andrea v.
Cited 7 timesPublishedEnvironmental Safety Consultants, Inc. v. United States
97 Fed. Cl. 190 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 11, 2011
Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.Cir.1988) (citing Zunamon v. Brown, 418 F.2d 883, 886 (8th Cir.1969)). … Plaintiffs’ claims cannot be transferred to an agency board of contract appeals because it is not a “court” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1631 , the statute authorizing transfers. 13 See Skillo v.
Cited 7 timesPublishedMPE Business Forms, Inc. v. United States
44 Fed. Cl. 421 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 29, 1999
Thus, the Court understands the Board’s desire to respond to the parties’ arguments even when the Board’s answer is superfluous. Cf. Massie v. … The ease is remanded to the Board for consideration of damages according to the Court’s interpretation of the contract. See Granite Constr. Co. v. United States, 962 F.2d 998, 1008 (Fed.Cir.1992); Teledyne Lewisburg v.
Cited 5 timesPublished94 Fed. Cl. 259 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 19, 2010
On the contrary, a military correction board is entitled to deference. Flowers v. … This Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of an examining physician, medical evaluation board, physical evaluation board, or the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records. See Joslyn v.
Cited 13 timesPublished63 Fed. Cl. 475 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 2005
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.Cir.1997). … Wildman v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 494, 495 (1993) (citing Anderson v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 178 , 179 n. 2 (1990) aff'd, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.Cir.1991) (table)); Osborn v.
Cited 75 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 21, 2025
“Congress has given the military secretaries the power to correct military records using civilian Corrections Boards.” Richey v. United States, 322 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. … An aggrieved service member, however, need not exhaust his administrative remedies by appealing to a military review board. Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublished89 Fed. Cl. 523 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 28, 2009
See Moore v. … Armitage v.
Cited 42 timesPublished42 Fed. Cl. 49 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 14, 1998
Judicial review of an administrative board decision is limited. See Ferrell v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 562, 567 (1991). … See Wood, 176 Ct.Cl. at 743 (“Absent convincing proof, [the court] will not impute bad faith or arbitrariness to that board.”); Furlong v.
Cited 13 timesPublished29 Fed. Cl. 611 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 1, 1993
See Bailey v. … Walters v.
Cited 7 timesPublished35 Fed. Cl. 515 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 22, 1996
Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 773, 776 (1995). In military disability retirement cases, a claim accrues upon the final decision by an appropriate board. Real v. United States, 906 F.2d 1557, 1560 (Fed. … The PEB is an appropriate board to make a final disability determination, and its decision is adequate to trigger the running of the statute of limitations. Fuller v. United States, 14 Cl.Ct. 542, 544 (1988); Steiner v.
Cited 12 timesPublished87 Fed. Cl. 553 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2009
Corp. v. … Thus, it remanded the case to the correction board to render a new decision. Id. Further, in Sanders v.
Cited 90 timesPublished35 Fed. Cl. 198 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 15, 1996
referred to the Board. … Absent convincing proof, this court will not impute bad faith or arbitrariness to the Physical Evaluation Board. See Wood v. United States, 176 Ct.Cl. 737, 743 , 1966 WL 8883 (1966) (citing Furlong v.
Cited 36 timesPublished90 Fed. Cl. 221 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 14, 2009
Council, Inc. v. … Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 161 , 101 S.Ct. 446 , 66 L.Ed.2d 358 (1980); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972).
Reversed by Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (2010)Cited 4 timesPublished48 Fed. Cl. 587 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 30, 2001
Plaintiff appealed the denial to the cognizant board of contract appeals. … Stillwell v. Brown, 46 F.3d 1111, 1113 (Fed.Cir.1995) (citations omitted); see also Clemmons v.
Cited 24 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 10, 2025
The MECO and ICIPT boards of directors knew about both companies’ financial situations. See ECF No. 19-6 at 44 (“The board knew exactly what was going on. They knew where the money was short. … United States, 579 F.2d 938, 940 (5th Cir. 1978); whether he or she successfully paid withholding taxes in a different quarter, Brown v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 26, 2022
Van Cleave v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 674, 679 (2006). “When reviewing the decisions of the [reviewing board] under the arbitrary and capricious standard, the scope of review is extremely narrow.” Champagne v. … Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The Court does not serve as a “super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 322, 327, 594 F.2d 824 (1979).
Cited 0 timesPublished73 Fed. Cl. 129 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 27, 2006
On August 16, 2001, Plaintiff appealed his termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”). See Gov’t Mot. Dis. Ex. 1 at 1. … See PL Resp. at 6-7 (citing Brown v. Secretary of the Army, 918 F.2d 214 (D.C.Cir.1990)).
Cited 0 timesPublished128 Fed. Cl. 196 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2016
See Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Kennedy v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 309, 329 (2015); Boyle v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 592, 595-96 (2011). … See Walters v. United States, 358 F.2d 957, 962 (Ct.
Cited 2 timesPublished36 Fed. Cl. 43 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 8, 1996
Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93 , 73 S.Ct. 534, 539-40 , 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953) (“judges are not given the task of running the Army.”). … Committee to Elect Lyndon La Rouche v.
Vacated in part, on other grounds by Small v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 149 (1997)Cited 5 timesPublished
Ask Donna