Case law

Altair Global Credit Opportunities Fund (A), LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 23, 2020

Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. … In Griggs v.

Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States

134 Fed. Cl. 405 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 31, 2016

In Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. … ,' ” Kellogg Brown & Root Servs,, Inc, v.

Miglionico v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 512 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2012

The Court of Federal Claims regularly hears eases concerning military corrections boards, but the review is focused on procedural matters. See Wells v. … Similarly, courts will consider whether the correction board’s decision was adequately supported or justified. See Rominger v.

Walters v. United States

37 Fed. Cl. 215 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 28, 1997

Orloff v. … See Heisig v.

Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 29, 2016

Steel Corp. v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984). … See Orion Int’l Techs. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 338, 343–44 (2004) (explaining that “the record may be supplemented with . . . information relied upon but omitted from the paper record”); cf. Gulf Grp. Inc. v.

Harris v. United States

102 Fed. Cl. 390 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 21, 2011

Harris chose not to meet the Board of Inquiry and opted to resign from the Navy, rather than have his record reviewed by a Board of Inquiry. Plaintiff Hands attempts to rely on the opinions in Scharf v. … The court does not sit as “a super correction board.” Skinner v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. at 331, 594 F.2d at 830 .

Night Vision Corp. v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 368 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 24, 2005

The court finds persuasive the reasoning of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) in General Atronics Corp. … Craig and Brown) had sent the PNVG prototypes that appear in this photograph to Insight. D. Resp. PFUF V 151; Pl.App. Ex. 371, 373. .

Joseph v. United States

62 Fed. Cl. 415 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 6, 2004

The board recommended that his case be referred to the Central Physical Evaluation Board. The Navy’s Physical Evaluation Board, without explanation, found plaintiff fit for duty on December 21, 1992. … Second, defendant relies on Deshauteurs v.

Pomory v. United States

39 Fed. Cl. 213 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 1997

The formal board endorsed the action of the informal board. (R. at 21-22.) The formal board stated that it had reevaluated the medical records and considered the sworn testimony by plaintiff. … See Sawyer v. United States, 930 F.2d 1577, 1580 (Fed.Cir. 1991); Cole v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 797, 801 (1995).

Zavislak v. United States

29 Fed. Cl. 525 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 27, 1993

See Frazier v. Callaway, 504 F.2d 960 (5th Cir.1974); Ritter v. United States, 401 F.Supp. 417 (D.Mass.1975). … See, e.g., Reale v.

Pipes v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 7, 2022

Pipes v. United States (“Pipes IV”), 150 Fed. Cl. 76, 82-84 (2020). Although the Court rejected the Board’s decision, the plaintiff was not awarded the relief he sought. … New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001) (quoting Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 227 n.8 (2000)).

Mexican Intermodal Equipment S.A. de C.V. v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 55 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 10, 2004

See Mackall v. Casilear, 137 U.S. 556, 566 , 11 S.Ct. 178 , 34 L.Ed. 776 (1890); see also Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U.S. 201, 211 , 25 L.Ed. 431 (1878); Brown v. … United States, 851 F.2d at 1379 ; see also Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 95 U.S. at 160 .

Ch2m Hill Hanford Group, Inc. v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 139 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 8, 2008

Case law holds that these doctrines apply to boards of contract appeals and the courts. See Astoria Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n. v. … .”); Pound v.

Metz v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 154 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2004

Palmer v. … Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153, 1156 (Fed.Cir.1983). To challenge the Board’s decision successfully, MSgt.

Return Mail, Inc. v. United States

107 Fed. Cl. 459 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 22, 2012

Neither is defendant’s burden met by the presence of USPS counsel at the IP Board meetings Mr. Wider attended. Stencel v. … In Lacroix v.

Mobility Systems & Equipment Co. v. United States

51 Fed. Cl. 233 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 11, 2001

See also Lawrence v. Muter Co., 171 F.2d 380, 382 (7th Cir.1948), cert. denied, sub nom. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Muter Co., 337 U.S. 907 , 69 S.Ct. 1049 , 93 L.Ed. 1720 (1949); Silliman v. … In Farmers & Ginners’ Cotton Oil Company v.

Farmers Grain Co. v. United States

39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,585 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 22, 1993

The storage and load out claims were first pursued by plaintiff in its 1988 action before the Board of Contract Appeals (Board). … The court in Raymark Indus., Inc. v.

B & G Enterprises, Ltd. v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 866 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 22, 2001

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 127 , 120 S.Ct. 1291 , 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) *867 (citing 60 Fed.Reg. 41314). … FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 , 120 S.Ct. 1291 , 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000).

Henrikson v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2022

Jones v. United States, 30 F.4th 1094, 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Sawyer v. United States, 930 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). … Cl. 1976); see also Boyer v. United States, 323 F. App’x 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2009). But here, neither the Board nor its Medical Advisor addressed what the Board seemed to acknowledge was Maj.

Norris v. United States

39 Fed. Cl. 807 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 11, 1998

Thereafter, plaintiff appealed the Board’s decision to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records requesting to set aside the findings of the Board. … Sammt v. United States, 780 F.2d 31, 32 (Fed.Cir.1985). The presumption of volun-tariness may be “vitiated only when the resignation is submitted under duress____” Christie v.