United States Court of Claims Court Cases

Search
  1. Eastport Steamship Corporation v. The United States (1967)

    In 1946, in the train of World War II, the United States was offered some former German merchant vessels as part of reparations. Despite some initial misgivings that the Maritime Commission already had enough American-built surplus vessels to dispose of, the Commission ultimately agreed with the Department of State to accept thirteen of these ex-German ships on the understanding that they would be used by American operators under the American flag and would not be sold on the world [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 74-55
  2. Autogiro Company of America v. The United States (1967)

    COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED J. Edward Shinn, Philadelphia, Pa., attorney of record, for plaintiff, Synnestvedt & Lechner, Raymond H. Synnestvedt, Philadelphia, Pa., and C. Willard Hayes, Washington, D. C., of counsel.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 50328
  3. Dorothea M. Scroggins v. The United States (1968)

    This is another case in which a civilian government worker contests her involuntary placement on the disability retirement list. See McGlasson v. United States, No. 186-61, Ct.Cl., 397 F.2d 303, decided this day. Mrs. Scroggins was a food service worker in the cafeteria of the Public Health Service Hospital in Baltimore. In April 1965, following an altercation with a fellow-worker and plaintiff's continuing complaints about that employee, the hospital asked her to submit to a psychiatric [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 352-66
  4. Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. The United States (1965)

    This case was referred pursuant to former Rule 45(a) (now Rule 57(a)) to Trial Commissioner Herbert N. Maletz, with directions to make findings of fact and recommendations for a conclusion of law. The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on July 10, 1963. The plaintiff has excepted to the opinion and certain of the findings of fact. The parties have filed briefs and the case has been argued orally. Since the court agrees with the commissioner's findings, his opinion and [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 199-60
  5. Beacon Construction Company of Massachusetts v. The United States (1963)

    This breach-of-contract case arises out of the plaintiff's agreement with the Public Housing Administration to construct, at Presque Isle, Maine, a defense housing project consisting of 275 dwelling and 7 laundry units. The Government required plaintiff to bear the expense of certain work which is said to be outside the contract obligations. We find that, for the most part, plaintiff is not entitled to recover.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 44-58
  6. J. D. Hedin Construction Company v. The United States (1965)

    COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Thomas H. McGrail, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff. Gallagher & Thompson, Washington, D. C., of counsel.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 387-56
  7. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. United States (1958)

    Plaintiff, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, formerly named The Permanente Metals Corporation, filed a petition pending motion for call, pursuant to Rule 13 of this court, 28 U.S. C.A. The pertinent part of the Rule is set out below.[1] This petition was accompanied by a Motion for Call in accord with 28 U.S.C. (Supp. III, 1952 ed.) § 2507 and this court's Rule 27.[2] Before action was taken on the motion an amended and amplified petition was filed, and at the same time a motion for [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 102-54
  8. John Reiner & Company v. The United States (1963)

    In May 1956 the Corps of Engineers advertised for bids on 3,567 generator sets to be purchased by the Army. The invitation stated that "the Government desires delivery" of the items in accordance with a definite schedule (ranging from September 30, 1956, to August 31, 1957), but it was also provided that "in the event bidder is unable to make deliveries in accordance with the foregoing schedule, he shall set forth in the space below his proposed delivery schedule." Immediately beneath [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 431-57
  9. G. L. Christian and Associates v. The United States (1963)

    Norman R. Crozier, Jr., Dallas, Tex., William L. Hillyer, San Diego, Cal., William W. Sweet, Jr., Dallas, Tex., and Chester E. Finn, Dayton, Ohio, for plaintiffs. Richard C. Bexten, Dallas, Tex., was on the briefs.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 56-59
  10. Morrison-Knudsen Company v. The United States (1965)

    Irving Jaffe, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. John W. Douglas, for defendant. Thomas J. Lydon and Richard R. Molleur, Washington, D. C., were on the briefs.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 239-61
  11. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. The United States (1963)

    Helene Curtis, a concern better known as a purveyor of cosmetics but also possessing general experience in the compounding and packaging of more mundane chemicals, contracted with the Army in 1951 and 1952 to supply large quantities of a disinfectant chlorine powder to be used by troops in the field — the Korean hostilities were then in progress — to disinfect mess gear and fresh fruits and vegetables. This disinfectant had been developed after World War II by the Office of [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 251-56
  12. Koppers Company, Inc. v. The United States (1968)

    Briefly, plaintiff's1 claims stem from the Army's rejection of landing mats it had delivered as its best efforts to perform the contract. Subsequently, the contracting officer terminated the contract for default.2 Plaintiff appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, pursuant to the Disputes Clause, and claimed that fulfillment of the design required by the contract specifications was impossible. Therefore, argued plaintiff, the termination was for the convenience of the [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 254-65
  13. Clapp v. United States (1954)

    The plaintiff was, in May 1951, the owner of a vessel, the steamship Empire Consequence, which he was anxious to sell, he having in 1949 taken the vessel in partial payment of a debt owed him by the Alaska Transportation Company, a corporation in which the plaintiff had been interested.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 314-52
  14. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co. v. The United States (1963)

    This contract case was referred to trial commissioner C. Murray Bernhardt, pursuant to Rule 45(a), for findings of fact and a recommendation for a conclusion of law. The commissioner has filed his report containing an opinion, proposed findings of fact, and a recommended conclusion of law. He would hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, with recovery to be determined under Rule 38 (c). The plaintiff accepts the commissioner's opinion and proposed legal conclusion, and offers only [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 389-59
  15. The Japanese War Notes Association of the Philippines v. The United States (1967)

    On January 3, 1942, the Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces in the Philippine Islands declared that his army of occupation would henceforth use Japanese military currency as legal tender. Approximately six weeks later, the Filipinos were apprised of this directive and ordered to accept the currency at its face value. Those who refused to obey the order were to be severely punished. During their three years of occupation, the Japanese forces appropriated considerable amounts [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 416-64
  16. Laburnum Construction Corporation v. The United States (1963)

    This is an action for breach of a contract for the installation of approximately 10,000 feet of high pressure steam line at the United States Naval Base in Norfolk, Virginia. The specifications called for the construction of a 16-inch pipeline above the ground connecting an existing steam line outside the Base with a steam plant at the South Annex area within the Base. The pipe was to be supported by concrete pedestals which in turn would rest upon wooden piles driven into the ground [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 530-59
  17. Keco Industries, Inc. v. The United States (1970)

    This case is before the court on defendant's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's opposition thereto. The two main questions involved are whether plaintiff has standing to maintain an action which involves the award by the Government of a contract to another, and whether plaintiff has raised enough of an inference of arbitrary and capricious action on the part of the Government to create a triable issue of fact. For reasons to be hereinafter stated, we conclude that plaintiff does [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 173-69
  18. International Business MacHines Corporation v. The United States (1965)

    Daniel M. Gribbon, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff. William H. Allen, Robert L. Randall, Charles W. Wolfram and Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C., of counsel.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 36-61
  19. Flippin Materials Company v. The United States (1963)

    The plaintiff is a joint venture — comprising the same nine large construction enterprises which were building the Bull Shoals Dam for the Government in Arkansas (see Ozark Dam Constructors v. United States, Ct.Cl., decided April 7, 1961, 288 F.2d 913) — which was formed for the sole purpose of contracting with the Government to manufacture sand and crushed rock (called "aggregate") from limestone found in a government-owned mountain (Lee Mountain) near the Bull Shoals area [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 8-57
  20. Commerce International Company, Inc. v. The United States (1964)

    This is a breach-of-contract suit charging defendant with unreasonable delay in supplying parts and drawings, and in failing to permit the prompt commercial purchase of parts when none were available in Government stores. Plaintiff is said to have suffered over $1,650,000 in damages because of defendant's improper delay.1


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 287-55

1 of 110 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5