Case law

Tatum v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 7, 2022

See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Landreth v. United States, 797 F. App’x at 523; Curry v. United States, 787 F. App’x 720, 722 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (per curiam). … See Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys., 223 F.3d 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Parklane Hosiery Co. v.

Sneeden v. United States

31 Fed. Cl. 671 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 11, 1994

Shane v. United States, 3 Cl.Ct. 294, 304 (1983) (quoting Wong v. United States, Cong.Ref. No. 3-74, slip op. at 12-13 (Ct.Cl. November 23, 1977). … After the Board’s decision, defendant’s obligation was to ensure that plaintiffs received the fair value of their claim. The testimony of Colonel Hanson demonstrates that this obligation was fulfilled. V Mr.

Janaskie v. United States

77 Fed. Cl. 654 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2007

[S]ueh corrections shall be made by the Secretary acting through boards of civilians of the executive part of that military department. ... 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (a)(1). As the Court explained in Friedman v. … V. Plaintiff contends that the initial decision to deny Plaintiffs benefits by the VA regional office—now being appealed to the Board of Veterans Affairs—constitutes a taking. Compl. 1142.

Pope v. United States

77 Fed. Cl. 737 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2007

If the claimant believes that a Board of Veteran’s Appeal decision is in error, the claimant may appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (a) (2000). See Hicks v. … See Orloff v.

Jordan v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 15, 2022

See Porter v. United States, 163 F.3d 1304, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“Section 1552 of title 10 gives the military secretaries power to correct military records using civilian boards.” (emphasis added)); Richey v. … Brown Park Ests.- Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States, 127 F.3d 1449, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Ariadne Fin.

Polk v. United States

73 Fed. Cl. 331 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 11, 2006

Lee v. United States, 7 Cl.Ct. 654, 657 (1985) (citing DeBow v. United States, 193 Ct.Cl. 499, 503 , 434 F.2d 1333, 1335 (1970)). … Plaintiff relies on Dougherty v. United States Navy Board for Correction of Naval Records, 784 F.2d 499 (3d Cir.1986) to support his arguments that he is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Ward v. United States

124 Fed. Cl. 206 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 24, 2015

Board (“FEB”) to determine Plaintist fitness for duty. … the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR’).

Cabot v. United States

38 Fed. Cl. 682 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 25, 1997

Greenberg v. United States, 46 F.3d 239, 243 (3rd Cir.1994); Gephart v. United States, 818 F.2d 469, 475 (6th Cir. 1987); Mazo v. United States, 591 F.2d 1151, 1156 (5th Cir.1979); Sale v. … In Purcell v.

Sneeden v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 303 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 27, 1995

A timely appeal was *306 made to the Engineers Board of Contract Appeals (Board) on November 30, 1979. Hearings on the appeal extended for 7 weeks from December 8, 1980, to January 29, 1981. … Hall considered the Board’s decision to have been wrongly decided, and he wanted to try the quantum portion of Lincoln’s claim before the Board.

Banerjee v. States

77 Fed. Cl. 522 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 26, 2007

The United States Court of Federal Claims does not sit as a “super correction board.” Skinner v. … Judicial review of a correction board should not be an opportunity for courts to substitute their judgment for that of the military board when reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions. See Sanders v.

Enriquez v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 7, 2025

Cir. 2005) (explaining a court “will not disturb the decision of the corrections board unless it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence” (citing Haselrig v. … V.

Andrews v. United States

43 Fed. Cl. 561 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 1999

United States, [ 164 Ct.Cl. 738, 742-43 (1964)], that resort to the Discharge Review Board is permissive, not mandatory, and the same is true, a fortiori, of the Correction Board.”); West v. … Since resort to a correction board is not mandatory, the time to file in this court is not tolled by application to, and proceedings before, the board.

North American Construction Corp. v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 73 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 1, 2003

A decision by one of the Boards of Contract Appeals is not binding on this court. Inter-Coastal Xpress, Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed.Cl. 531, 538 (2001), aff'd, 296 F.3d 1357 (Fed.Cir.2002); Mega Constr. Co. v. … Eurostyle Inc. v.

Loomis v. United States

74 Fed. Cl. 350 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 15, 2006

Loomis v. United States, 68 Fed.Cl. 503 (2005). … In TGS International, Inc. v.

Fru-Con Construction Co. v. United States

57 Fed. Cl. 483 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 7, 2003

CW Gov’t Travel, Inc. v. United States, 53 Fed.Cl. 580, 590 (2002); see E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445, 449 (Fed.Cir.1996). … Corp. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 113, 120 (2000). The fact that FruCon disagrees with the evaluator’s conclusions is not enough for this court to overturn them. See ITT Fed. Servs. Corp. v.

Williams v. United States

100 Fed. Cl. 263 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 16, 2011

The board found that Mr. … The board further advised Mr.

Southwest Investment Co. ex rel. First Louisiana Federal Savings Bank v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 182 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 23, 2004

In Plaintiffs in Winstar-Related Cases v. … Corp. v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 247 (2002) and Admiral Fin. Corp. v. United States, 51 Fed.Cl. 366 (2002).

Haggart v. United States

131 Fed. Cl. 628 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 4, 2017

v. … After examining all of the Brown factors, however, the court ultimately held that the factors taken together favored an easement. Id. 14 See Pls.’

Rutledge v. United States

72 Fed. Cl. 396 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 22, 2006

See Brown v. … .”); 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.

Ford Motor Company v. United States

132 Fed. Cl. 104 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2017

, Ltd. v. … See Evans v.