Case law

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States

49 Fed. Cl. 313 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2001

Co. v. … As an initial matter, the responsibility for water allocation is vested in the State Water Resources Control Board. Cal. Water Code §§ 174 ,179; California v.

Daluz v. United States

73 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)).

Sabo v. United States

102 Fed. Cl. 619 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 22, 2011

Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 90 Fed.Cl. 95, 102 (2009); see also Berkley v. … In King v.

Peterson v. United States

104 Fed. Cl. 196 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 2012

Williams v. … The Court of Federal Claims does not sit as “a super correction board,” Skinner v.

Richey v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 3 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 18, 2001

Sanders v. … Paccon, Inc. v.

Finkelstein v. United States

29 Fed. Cl. 611 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 1, 1993

See Bailey v. … Walters v.

Salinas v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 399 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 25, 2002

Walker v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 77, 80 (1986) citing Spagnola v. Stockman, 732 F.2d 908, 912 (Fed.Cir.1984); United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887 (Fed.Cir.1983); and Montalvo v. … Finally, “where an employee is provided a means of redress under the CSRA, that is, an appeal to the Board, the employee does not have an independent cause of action in the Claims Court.” McClary v.

Rominger v. United States

72 Fed. Cl. 268 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 20, 2006

Kirwin v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 497, 502 (1991) (citing de Cicco v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 224 , 677 F.2d 66, 70 (1982)). See also Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1986); Heisig v. … In this connection, the court will not re-weigh the evidence or sit as a “super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 322 , 594 F.2d 824, 830 (1979).

Wollman v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 656 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 6, 2013

Compare Barnick v. United States, 591 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2010) (decision of Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records), Fisher v. … United States, 101 Fed.Cl. 245, 262-63 (2011) (decision of Board for Correction of Naval Records), and Loomis v.

Roth v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 239 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2003

, then the record is not complete, and it is before the Selection Board in a way other than as the statute [ 10 U.S.C. §§ 576 and 615, formerly § 5706] prescribes.’ ” Porter v. … Since the board did not address this portion of plaintiff's request, the court cannot review it. . See AR at 136-47. . See Cunningham v.

D'Andrea v. United States

27 Fed. Cl. 612 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 5, 1993

In Irwin v. … The Federal Circuit in Welcker v.

Park Properties Assocs., L.P. v. United States

74 Fed. Cl. 264 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 17, 2006

Not so, defendant maintains, relying on Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449 (Fed.Cir.1997). … Moreover, in recent years, Brown Park has repeatedly been cited and relied upon for the exact propositions that plaintiffs claim are moribund. See, e.g., Wells v.

Weeks v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 24, 2019

In Silverman v. … Brown v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 546, 550 (2006). The court assumes, for the sake of argument, that Ms. Weeks could have asserted a timely due process claim when she filed her complaint in the instant case.

Alvin v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 295 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 28, 2001

Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94 , 73 S.Ct. 534 , 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953). … Wygant v. Jackson Board of Ed., 476 U.S. 267, 277-78 , 106 S.Ct. 1842 , 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986).

Wollman v. United States

116 Fed. Cl. 419 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 5, 2014

Indeed, a military board’s decision to reverse a previous finding by a disability evaluation board must be explained. See Istivan v. United States, 689 F.2d 1034, 1039 (Ct. … v.

American Federal Bank, FSB v. United States

62 Fed. Cl. 185 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2004

Lincoln Bank v. … Lincoln Bank v.

Bank of America, FSB v. United States

55 Fed. Cl. 670 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 21, 2003

Bank v. United States, 53 Fed.Cl. 690 (2002); Southern Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 531 (2002); and Bluebonnet Sav. Bank, FSB v. … Robo Wash, Inc. v.

Parsons v. United States

65 Fed. Cl. 638 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 24, 2005

Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.Cir.1997) (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 2-3 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969)). 5 Next, Mr. … Brown, 105 F.3d at 623 (citing L’Enfant Plaza Props., Inc. v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 1 , 645 F.2d 886, 892 (1981)). Similarly, Mr.

Pikes Peak Family Housing, LLC v. United States

42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,280 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 7, 1998

United States, 27 Fed.Cl. 795, 799 (1993); Brown v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 409, 411-12 (1983). … Brown, 3 Cl.Ct. at 412 , Northrop, 27 Fed.Cl. at 800 .

Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States

75 Fed. Cl. 761 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 28, 2007

See Hesse v. … See United States v.