Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
2.46s
94 Fed. Cl. 637 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2010
The Board also found that ESCI’s challenge to the default termination of Contract II was not before the Board in Case No. 54615, but was pending before the Board in Case No. 51722. Id. at 165,979, 165,986 . … The Board stated: "The Government has the common law right of setoff. United States v.
Reversed in part, on other grounds by Nwogu v. United States, 497 F. App'x 952 (2012)Cited 7 timesPublishedTextron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 12, 2022
Gates v. Raytheon Co., 584 F.3d 1062, 1064 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Board amended CAS 413 in 1995 and made two important changes. First, the Board “specifically defined ‘segment closing.’” Allegheny Teledyne Inc. v. … See Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 773 F.3d 1315, 1320–22 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. Murphy, 823 F.3d 622, 630 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublished61 Fed. Cl. 209 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2004
A plaintiff must present “ ‘cogent and clearly convincing evidence’ ” to prevail in a challenge to a military correction board decision. Dodson v. … If the court were to find otherwise, the court would be functioning as a super-correction board, see Voge v.
Cited 5 timesPublished57 Fed. Cl. 266 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 16, 2003
Boyle v. United States, 200 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2000). In making this determination, “pleadings drafted by pro se plaintiffs are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.” Thomas v. … The effect of proceedings before a corrections board on the accrual of a military pay case was recently addressed by the Federal Circuit in Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed.Cir.2003).
Cited 2 timesPublishedTown Center Management Corp. v. United States
39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,691 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 29, 1994
GSBCA’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In a Wunderlich Act case, the reviewing court has the authority to review de novo the board’s conclusions of law. See Vista Scientific Corp. v. … However, a board’s interpretations of a contract are to be given careful consideration and a great deal of deference. Fortec Constructors v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedCross Petroleum, Inc. v. United States
54 Fed. Cl. 317 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2002
None of the three cases plaintiff cites-Merritt-Campbell, Inc. v. RxP Prods., Inc., 164 F.3d 957, 960 (5th Cir.1999); McClaran v. Plastic Indus., Inc., 97 F.3d 347 , 355 (9th Cir.1996); and Panasonic Co. v. … The cases upon which plaintiff relies — SIPCO Serv. & Marine, Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed.Cl. 196 (1998); SMS Data Prod. Group, Inc. v. United States, 17 Cl.Ct. 1 (1989); and Sun Cal Inc., v.
Cited 5 timesPublished107 Fed. Cl. 114 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2012
Plaintiffs burden is to show by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the decision of the correction board fails this standard. Wronke v. … Plaintiff also must overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to the actions of a correction board. See Richey v.
Cited 1 timesPublished131 Fed. Cl. 689 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 14, 2017
(i\/IEB) and by an informal physical evaiuation board (PEB). … “The decision by the first statutorily authorized board which hears or refuses to hear the claim is the triggering event.” Real v. United States, 906 F.2d at 1560.
Cited 1 timesPublished56 Fed. Cl. 522 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 23, 2002
in Denkler v. … MDB Communications v. U.S.
Cited 18 timesPublished121 Fed. Cl. 248 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 27, 2015
So long as the Board considered the relevant evidence and came to a reasonable conclusion, this court will not disturb the Board's decision.” Riser v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 679, 683– 84 (2011) (quoting Heisig v. … Cir. 2013) (citing Friedman v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl. 1, 310 F.2d at 386–87). Additionally, the court does not sit as “a super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.
Cited 5 timesPublished101 Fed. Cl. 245 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2011
Id. § V. … See Barnick v. United States, 591 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2010) (“The Board is competent to make ... a retroactive disability determination.”); Sawyer v.
Cited 5 timesPublished46 Fed. Cl. 69 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 7, 2000
Additionally, the Board agreed with the JAG advisory opinion that Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 . … The Board, as with all public administrators, is presumed to have “discharge[d] them duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.” See Doe v.
Cited 12 timesPublished72 Fed. Cl. 20 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 19, 2006
See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.1997). … Cummings v.
Cited 1 timesPublished33 Fed. Cl. 504 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 1, 1995
D'Andrea v. United States, 27 Fed.Cl. 612, 614 , aff'd, 6 F.3d 786 (Fed.Cir.1993); Brundage v. … Under that line of cases, military personnel can proceed in this forum to obtain relief not granted by the review board. See, e.g., Lee v. United States, 7 Cl.Ct. 654, 657 (1985); DeBow v.
Cited 42 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 10, 2025
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). The Court of Federal Claims has limited jurisdiction. Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Massie v. … Apr. 6, 2023) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s FERS claims because they should be first before OPM and then the United States Merit Systems Protection Board); Stekelman v. United States, 752 F. App’x 1008, 1010 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 22, 2025
, “Military Boards”) and a stay of proceedings. … In SKF USA Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 20, 2023
Sand & Gravel Co. v. … Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotes omitted). Plaintiff retired in September 2020 and the Board denied her request for relief in July 2021.
Cited 0 timesPublished91 Fed. Cl. 111 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 26, 2010
Plaintiffs burden is to show by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the decision of the corrections board fails this standard. Wronke v. … Plaintiff must also overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to the actions of the correction board. See Richey v.
Cited 5 timesPublished48 Fed. Cl. 585 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 24, 2001
Indeed, the promises had to be made to the Board, for only the Board *587 could approve the mergers. … The claims of plaintiffs Jerome Maher and John Gravee that are now before this court were initially raised, by way of counterclaims, in the case cited — FDIC v. Gravee, 966 F.Supp. 622 (N.D.I11.1997).
Cited 5 timesPublishedAmerican Floor Consultants & Installations, Inc. v. United States
70 Fed. Cl. 235 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 14, 2006
Group v. … Corp. v.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna