Case law

J.L. Simmons Co. v. United States

60 Fed. Cl. 388 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2004

Plaintiff, in turn, appealed each of these matters to the VA’s Construction Contract Appeals Board (the Board). In 1955 and 1956, plaintiff was permitted to appear and present witnesses before the Board. … Corp. v.

Moehl v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 682 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 19, 1996

However, this discretion does not permit the Secretary to arbitrarily refuse to follow the fact findings of the correction board where all the evidence supports the board’s findings. See Hertzog v. … A court does not sit as a super correction board, Skinner v.

Synernet Corp. v. United States

42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,351 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 29, 1998

its pending case before the NASA Board of Contract Appeals. … .”); Heagy v.

Dinh v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 5, 2023

See Knick v. Township of Scott, Pa., 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2176 (2019); E. Enters. v. … Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC, 140 S. Ct. 1649, 1662 (2020). As such, the Oversight Board could not have acted as an agent of the United States in the Title III case for COFINA. See Altair II, 151 Fed.

Mann v. United States

53 Fed. Cl. 562 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 3, 2002

.”); See also Brown v. United States, 195 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“The interpretation of regulations which are incorporated into government contracts is a question of law which the Court is free to resolve.”) … In Mennonite Board of Missions v.

Carter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

132 Fed. Cl. 372 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 18, 2017

Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees at 3; Brown v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-50V, 2014 WL 5408970 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 26, 2014); Padilla v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-91V, 2011 WL 1598780 (Fed. Cl. … V.

Lechliter v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 536 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 25, 2006

Importantly, the court does not sit as a “super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 322 , 594 F.2d 824, 830 (1979). The court will not “substitute its judgment for that of the correction board.” … Murphy v.

Leonard v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 24, 2022

Lengen v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 317, 328 (2011). In reviewing pro se claims, the Court may excuse ambiguities, but not defects. Colbert v. United States, 617 F. App’x 981, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015); McNutt v. Gen. … Leonard’s claims pertaining to his imprisonment conditions are asserted against named local prison officials at the Brown County jail, local officials at the Brownwood Law Enforcement Center, and the Sheriff of Brown County

Caraway v. United States

123 Fed. Cl. 527 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 29, 2015

Moreover, the Federal Circuit “has long held that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over a case that could be heard by the [Merit Systems Protection Board].” Pueschel v. … See Gallo v. Department of Transp., 689 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The Board possesses authority to award compensation under the Back Pay Act.”).

Ignatius M. Tee, Jr. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 10, 2025

At the senior member’s discretion, any board member may ask the student or counsel to clarify any testimony or statements brought before the board.” NSTC M-1533.2E § 6-12 ¶ 3. … V; then citing 10 U.S.C. § 831(a); and then quoting Griffin v.

Tiber Creek Consulting, Inc. v. United States

129 Fed. Cl. 409 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 17, 2016

See Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A contracting officer is not bound by Selection Board evaluations. … Sec., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 359 (Fed. Cl. 2011). The Selection Board’s duties are limited to an advisory function.

Meidl v. United States

100 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 10, 2011

See Fisher v. … Corp. v.

Novacare, Inc. v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 165 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2002

True v. United States, 190 F.3d at 1175 (citing Brown v. United States, 782 F.2d at 563 ). … Id. at 1430 ; see also True v. United States, 190 F.3d at 1175 (citing Brown v.

Carroll v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 14, 2025

He alleges that the taking occurred when the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (“NITU”) that prevented the Norfolk Southern Railway (the “Railroad”) from consummating the abandonment … See, e.g., Nicholson v. United States, 170 Fed. Cl. 399, 410 (2024); Brown v. United States, 153 Fed. Cl. 318, 331 (2021).

Angelo v. United States

57 Fed. Cl. 100 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2003

Compare Brown v. Secretary of the Army, 918 F.2d 214, 218 (D.C.Cir.1990) (a plaintiff who otherwise meets the requirements of the BPA may recover interest via the BPA in a Title VII action); Social Security Admin, v. … Lujan, 40 F.3d 1152, 1154 (10th Cir.1994) (adopting Brown), with Ameson v.

Rana v. United States

130 Fed. Cl. 629 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2016

See United States v. … .’’); Sonnenfeld v.

McCord v. United States

131 Fed. Cl. 333 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2017

The Court reviews the administrative record to determine whether a board’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law. See Chappell v. … ”); Barnick v.

Nathan T. Meidl v. United States

114 Fed. Cl. 607 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 30, 2014

See FW/PBS, Inc. v. … That the court “might disagree” with the decision of a board for correction of military records, in and of itself, is insufficient to overturn a correction board’s decision. See Storey v.

Clark v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 24, 2025

In September 2022, the Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion seeking to remand this case to the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records (“AFBCMR”) to address “whether a new special selection board (SSB) for … Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other ground by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 747 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Dachman v. United States

73 Fed. Cl. 508 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 4, 2006

.”); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“The Court of Federal Claims ... lacks jurisdiction over tort actions against the United States.”); LeBlanc v. … United States, 161 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed.Cir.1998); Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449 , 1454 (Fed.Cir.1997); Hart v.