Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
0.37s
53 Fed. Cl. 258 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 14, 2002
See also Stephenson v. United States, 37 Fed.Cl. 396, 406 (1997). See also Korody-Colyer Corp. v. … See United States v.
Cited 13 timesPublishedEntergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC v. United States
95 Fed. Cl. 160 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 24, 2010
Power Co. v. … In Energy Northwest v.
Cited 14 timesPublished34 Fed. Cl. 112 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 7, 1995
See Fox v. … See Griggs v. Jefferson Bank & Trust Co., 57 S.W.2d 390, 391 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana 1933); Brown v. Harris, 7 Tex.Civ.App. 664 , 27 S.W. 45 (1894); Tex.Trust Code § 112.032; 1 A. Scott & W.
Cited 0 timesPublished35 Fed. Cl. 226 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 27, 1996
See Sanders v. … Resort to a correction board is permissive, not mandatory, in military pay cases and exhaustion of administrative remedies is therefore not required before such cases may be heard by the court. Kirk v.
Cited 10 timesPublished126 Fed. Cl. 619 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 6, 2016
Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d at 1301-03. … board or a correction board.
Cited 0 timesPublishedR.C. Construction Co. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,389 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 14, 1998
See Severin v. … See 87-2 B.C.A. at 100,016. 6 Other Board decisions have implicitly approved T.H. Taylor. In Jordan & Nobles Construction Co. v. General Services Administration, 93-2 B.C.A.
Cited 13 timesPublished36 Fed. Cl. 589 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 10, 1996
In Friedman v. … Id. at 387, 556 F.2d at 1106 (emphasis added); see also Fuller v.
Cited 1 timesPublished36 Fed. Cl. 257 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 7, 1996
Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564,1572 (Fed.Cir.1996). We are “obligated to ... draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor.” Henke v. … United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed.Cir.1995) (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236-37 , 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686-87 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), and Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina v.
Cited 2 timesPublished85 Fed. Cl. 392 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 14, 2009
Plante v. Jacobs addressed “[substantial performance as applied to construction of a house.” Plante v. Jacobs, 103 N.W.2d at 298 . Vela v. … The plaintiff in Universal Fiberglass Corp. v. United States (Universal Fiberglass) appealed its termination for default to the General Services Administration (GSA) Board of Contract Appeals.
Cited 4 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 23, 2023
United States v. … Brown v. United States is instructive on the jurisdictional requirement to allege a statutory or regulatory basis for a breach-of-trust claim. 86 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Cited 0 timesPublished28 Fed. Cl. 162 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 27, 1993
V, R. 71. … A discharge decision made by a correction board may be vacated if it is arbitrary, capricious, unlawful or unsupported by substantial evidence. Chappell v.
Cited 7 timesPublishedLAKESHORE HARBOUR TOWNHOUSES CONDOMINIUM v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 24, 2024
The relevant time, when the alleged taking occurs, is when the Board issues a notice of interim trail use and authorizes a trail use agreement, Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015, 1023- 24 (Fed. … Nordberg v.
Cited 0 timesPublished129 Fed. Cl. 126 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 10, 2016
Generally, this court’s “review of a military corrections board is limited to the administrative record” compiled by the agency. Walls v. United States, 582 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Metz v. … Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The corrections board decision must be sufficiently detailed for the court to ascertain the reasoning behind the denial of relief to the applicant.
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 14, 2020
In challenging the determinations of a military corrections board, a plaintiff must demonstrate “by cogent and clearly convincing evidence,” Wronke v. … Cir. 1986), that the military board’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law.” Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Cited 0 timesPublishedFifth Third Bank v. United States
56 Fed. Cl. 668 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2003
See United States v. … See also Bank Board Resolution V-O-P-83-2, Feb. 25, 1983 (approving Gateway transaction); Bank Board Resolution V-O-M-84-2, Feb. 23, 1984 (approving Homestead transaction); Bank Board Resolution V-O-M-85-7, July 18, 1985
Cited 8 timesPublished47 Fed. Cl. 493 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2000
Plaintiff compares her situation to 3 cases, Adkins v. United States, 68 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir.1995); Braun v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 50 F.3d 1005 (Fed.Cir.1995); and Roskos v. … Plaintiff also relies on Tippett v.
Cited 9 timesPublished133 Fed. Cl. 248 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 18, 2017
United Stares v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 2l 8, 226-27 (2001). … Hymds v. United Stares, 810 F.3d 1312, l324 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Cited 4 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 3, 2022
Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1953). … Christian v. United States, 337 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Hary v. United States, 223 F.2d 704, 707 (Ct. Cl. 1980)).
Cited 0 timesPublished127 Fed. Cl. 217 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2016
The Board’s decision will comply with the substantial evidence standard so long as a “‘reasonable mind might accept’ [the] particular evidentiary record as ‘adequate to support [the contested] conclusion.’” Dickinson v. … [the] evidence in the record are judgment calls that rest primarily within the discretion of the [Merit Systems Protection] Board.” (quoting Hall v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 264 F.3d 1050, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2001))).
Cited 6 timesPublished100 Fed. Cl. 74 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2011
As the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has noted, wrongful discharge claims, in contrast to disability claims, need no action by an underlying agency board. Chambers, 417 F.3d at 1224-25 ; Holley v. … or Physical Evaluation Board.
Cited 4 timesPublished
Ask Donna