Case law

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.

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.

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).

Portland General Electric Co. v. United States

100 Fed. Cl. 46 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2011

In Indiana Michigan Power Company v. … In Northern States Power Co. v.

Richter v. United States

United 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.

Franklin Federal Savings Bank v. United States

53 Fed. Cl. 690 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 5, 2002

In Castle, et al. v. … In Dorr-Oliver, Inc. v.

Brooks v. United States

88 Fed. Cl. 141 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 6, 2009

Decisions by a Secretary acting through a correction board, which involve the legal entitlement to money and are thus cognizable by our Court, see Voge v. … See id.; see also Dysart v.

McCauley v. States

38 Fed. Cl. 250 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 1997

Id. at 135 (citing Spruill v. Merit Sys. Protection Board, 978 F.2d 679, 687-88 (Fed.Cir.1992)). … Spruill v. Merit Sys. Protection Board, 978 F.2d at 687 .

Tindle v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 337 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2003

Corp. v. … In Powell v.

Volk v. United States

111 Fed. Cl. 313 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2013

Heisig v. … Alexce v.

Contreras v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 10, 2015

On March 4, 2010, the Georgia Board issued another Public Consent Order. The Georgia Board restored Dr. Sladky’s medical license on a probationary basis. The Georgia Board conditioned Dr. … For example, appellate courts have held cross-examination about the expert’s record before a disciplinary board to be improper. Foley v.

Heuss v. United States

78 Fed. Cl. 442 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 25, 2007

Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. (Reynolds), 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.Cir.1988). … Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 497, 499 , aff'd, 98 Fed.Appx. 860 (Fed.Cir.2004) (Table); see also Kelley v.

Black v. United States

28 Fed. Cl. 177 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 1993

See Black v. United States, 24 Cl.Ct. 461 (1991); Black v. United States, 24 Cl.Ct. 465 (1991); Black v. United States, 24 Cl.Ct. 471 (1991); Black v. United States, 25 Cl.Ct. 268 (1992). … See Hutter v. United States, 345 F.2d 828 , 170 Ct.Cl. 517 (1965); Weiner v. United States, 148 Ct.Cl. 445 (1960); Suter v.

Pride v. United States

40 Fed. Cl. 730 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 18, 1998

Defendant, however, argues that a favorable determination by the Correction Board cannot mark the accrual of plaintiffs cause of action and points to Haislip v. … The Correction Board corrected CMSgt.

Specialty Transportation, Inc. v. United States

57 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 2, 2003

Brown, 29 F.3d 611, 615 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“Extrinsic evidence should not be used to introduce an ambiguity where none exists”). … At the outset, the court notes that according to the Board of Contract Appeals: In this connection, it is noted that in practice before the Board of Contract Appeals, it is not compulsory that all claims against the prosecuting

American Federal Bank, FSB v. United States

58 Fed. Cl. 429 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 7, 2003

Auld Co. v. … In La Van v.

Dean v. United States

92 Fed. Cl. 133 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 2010

Corp. v. … All that the existence of judicial review means is that the Board’s decision will be reviewed, in a proper ease, if a timely suit is brought. 18 Friedman v.

FloorPro, Inc. v. United States

94 Fed. Cl. 775 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 23, 2010

In June of 2009, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the matter for dismissal. See Winter v. FloorPro, 570 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir. 2009). … See Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed.Cir.1998). The Government relies on the rule established in Brighton Village Assoc. v.

American Telecom Corp. v. United States

59 Fed. Cl. 467 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 18, 2004

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984); Boyle v. … In Marshall Associated Contractors, Inc. v.