Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,911 results
1.99s
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 2, 2025
Cir. 2023) (citing Brown v. United States, 22 F.4th 1008, 1011–12 (Fed. Cir. 2022)). When a plaintiff cannot “prove that [his] claim for refund was duly filed,” the appropriate remedy is dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(6). … Brown v. United States, 22 F.4th 1008, 1011–12 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Vensure HR, Inc. v. United States, 119 F.4th 7, 16 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSterling Savings v. United States
57 Fed. Cl. 445 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 4, 2003
(“FHLBB” or “Bank Board”). … V-l at 108.
Cited 3 timesPublishedStarr International Co. v. United States
106 Fed. Cl. 50 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 2, 2012
V. … , leaving the Board with no choice but to yield.”
Vacated in part by Starr International Company v. United States, 856 F.3d 953 (2017)Cited 21 timesPublished36 Fed. Cl. 159 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 23, 1996
As the court stated in Crispino v. … Sand *162 ers v.
Cited 10 timesPublished106 Fed. Cl. 513 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 4, 2012
A claimant then may appeal the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which has “exclusive jurisdiction” to review the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ decisions. … United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed.Cir.2008); Alves v. United States, 133 F.3d 1454, 1459 (Fed.Cir.1998); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (Fed.Cir.1997); Golden Pac. Bancorp v.
Cited 2 timesPublished65 Fed. Cl. 631 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2005
See, e.g., Casey v. … For example, in Gant v.
Cited 2 timesPublished124 Fed. Cl. 668 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 19, 2016
Ogunniyi’s motion to reconsider generally repeats his previous filings and submissions to this court and also to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), including tort claims, the same breach of contract allegations … United States, 133 F.3d 1454, 1459 (Fed.Cir.1998); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (Fed.Cir.1997); Golden Pac. Bancorp v.
Cited 5 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 27, 2025
Cir. 2020) (“We review the Board’s determinations of law for correctness without deference to the Board’s decision.”) (citation omitted); Acuna v. Equal Emp. … In that case, the plaintiff’s provisional appointment to ensign was held invalid because he had not been recommended for the appointment by a board of three naval officers or found physically qualified by a board of medical
Cited 0 timesPublished61 Fed. Cl. 185 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2004
Martinez at 1304 (reaffirming Hurick v. Lehman, 782 F.2d 984, 986-87 (Fed.Cir.1986)). … Elliott cites four eases in support of his position: Barnes v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 204 (2003); Ainslie v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 103 (2003); Anderson v. United States, 54 Fed.Cl. 620 (2002); and Thumser v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedUnited 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.
Cited 0 timesPublished30 Fed. Cl. 417 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 10, 1994
Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., *419 846 F.2d 746, 747 (Fed.Cir.1988). In W.R. Cooper General Contractor, Inc. v. … It is well established that no claim for disability retirement pay or disability retirement status accrues until there has been a final decision or a refusal to act, upon request, by the proper board. Friedman v.
Cited 5 timesPublishedFirst Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. v. United States
72 Fed. Cl. 369 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 23, 2006
Co. v. … In Karl Rove & Co. v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedStobie Creek Investments, LLC v. United States
82 Fed. Cl. 636 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2008
Waterman also joined the board of Therma-Tru as a director. See Tr. at 157-61. … The brokerage firm DB Alex Brown formerly was known as Alex Brown, then BT Alex Brown, before being acquired by Deutsche Bank.
Cited 63 timesPublishedSpectrum Sciences v. United States
84 Fed. Cl. 716 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 13, 2008
See Gibson v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 160 F.3d 722, 728 (Fed.Cir.1998); Tech. Assistance Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 150 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed.Cir.1998); Die Casters Int’l, Inc. v. … See New Valley Corp. v. United States, 119 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed.Cir.1997); Freedman v. United States, 162 Ct.Cl. 390 , 320 F.2d 359, 366-67 (1963); Nahra v.
Cited 18 timesPublished38 Fed. Cl. 524 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 28, 1997
On June 6, 1956, plaintiff appealed the removal decision to the Civil Service Commission Board of Appeals and Review (the “Board”), which upheld the decision on September 12, 1956. … Subsequently, on October 12, 1956, plaintiff requested reconsideration of the Board’s decision, which was denied. On May 16, 1960, an attorney, on behalf of Ms.
Cited 1 timesPublished31 Fed. Cl. 121 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 1994
Plaintiffs further urge the court to disregard the Wilson case because, they contend, the Board of Tax Appeals relied on a precedent of the California Supreme Court, Dau-bert v. … In Faulkner v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 21, 2026
Koby v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 99, 104 (2000) (quoting Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 431–32 (1998) (Breyer, J., concurring)); see also Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. … Cir. 2002) (“Because the pre-removal placement on administrative leave or reassignment to restricted duty were not adverse actions, they are not remediable by the Board under the Back Pay Act.”); Von Gunten v.
Cited 0 timesPublished127 Fed. Cl. 606 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 26, 2016
Chapter 61; v. … It is well settled that resort to a correction board is a permissive action, not a mandatory requirement. See Antonellis v. United States, 723 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed.
Cited 7 timesPublishedMorse Diesel International, Inc. v. United States
69 Fed. Cl. 558 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 1, 2006
See Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. … See Morse Diesel, Inc. v. United States, No. 99-279C (Fed.Cl.
Cited 4 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 12, 2021
v. … See Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] correction board may entertain any kind of application for correction.”).
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna