United States Court of Claims Court Cases

Search
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Heyer Products Company v. United States (1956)

    The material allegations of the petition are as follows: On March 17, 1952, the Ordnance Tank Automotive Center, Ordnance Corps, United States Army (hereinafter referred to as OTAC) advertised for bids on 5,500 low-voltage circuit testers. On April 15, 1952, plaintiff submitted a bid, together with a sample unit and a letter of explanation, a photograph of the completed unit, a schematic diagram showing the circuit connections, and a specification describing the unit in detail. It alleges that [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 96-55
  4. George A. Fuller Co. v. United States (1947)

    The plaintiff sues the defendant for damages for delays caused by defendant in failing to furnish models on time, for delays caused by changes made in the work, and for delay in the approval of the limestone to be used.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 44585
  5. FH McGraw and Company v. United States (1955)

    The plaintiff, F. H. McGraw and Company, alleged eight causes of action in its petition, but in its proposed findings before the Commissioner and its argument before the court it urges only two grounds for recovery: one is to recover damages for itself and its subcontractors for an alleged breach of contract arising out of a stop order issued by the Veterans Administration; the other is to recover increased wages for itself and its subcontractors which were paid under authorization of the Wage [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 49237
  6. Fruhauf Southwest Garment Co. v. United States (1953)

    The plaintiff, a Kansas corporation with its place of business at Wichita, Kansas, seeks to recover the sum of $48,560 alleged to be the difference between the amount paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and the amount due plaintiff under a contract whereby the plaintiff manufactured overcoats for the United States Army.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 49239
  7. National Surety Corporation v. United States (1955)

    Emanuel Harris, New York City, for National Surety Corp. and Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, and M. U. S. Kjorlaug, Houston, Tex., for First Nat. Bank in Houston. Max E. Greenberg, New York City, and Boyles & Billingsley, Houston, Tex., on the briefs.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 419-52, 149-53
  8. Knotts v. United States (1954)

    The decisions of this court are uniform in holding that it will not review on the merits a removal of a Government employee where it appears that the procedural requirements prescribed by statute have been complied with, and where there is no showing that the action was taken maliciously or in bad faith. But we have also said that if it appears that an employee was discharged, not for the good of the service, but from motives of malice or for any reason other than for the good of the service, [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 50215
  9. John A. Johnson Contr. Corp. v. United States (1955)

    The plaintiff, on December 15, 1942, made a contract with the Government, which acted through the War Department's Corps of Engineers, to construct the U. S. Army General Hospital at Utica, New York. There were to be 122 buildings, with connecting enclosed walkways, and the contractor was to install all utilities, place the surfacing on the roads, and do the finished grading and seeding of the grounds. The Government was to furnish various items of material which would be incorporated in the [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 47607
  10. Turney v. United States (1953)

    The plaintiff sues for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment or, in the alternative, for damages for breach of contract. The claim arises out of the alleged taking by the Government of a large quantity of radar equipment.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 48724
  11. Fehlhaber Corporation v. United States (1957)

    This suit arises as the result of a contract entered into by plaintiff, Fehlhaber Pile Co., Inc.,[1] a New York Corporation, with the defendant, acting through the War Department, for the construction of the substructure for the Chesapeake City Highway Bridge located at Chesapeake City, Maryland. Plaintiff alleges that during operations under the contract it encountered subsurface conditions which differed materially from those contained in the specifications and as a result thereof incurred [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 49316
  12. Warren Bros. Roads Co. v. United States (1952)

    Plaintiff, Warren Brothers Roads Company, a paving contractor, sues to recover the losses which it and its subcontractor, A. G. Wimpy, allegedly incurred in constructing the Troy, Alabama, airport for the Civil Aeronautics Administration. Plaintiff's claims are divided into three separate causes of action, each involving a separate period of performance. In addition, plaintiff presents a fourth cause of action consisting of Wimpy's claims for each of these three periods.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 47557
  13. Chain Belt Co. v. United States (1953)

    In this suit the plaintiff seeks to recover damages in the amount of $267,223.74, for breach of contract arising out of defendant's failure to move its machinery out of a portion of the premises purchased by plaintiff from defendant on the date agreed to in the contract of sale, and defendant's failure to repair damage caused to the floors as a result of the moving operation when it was performed. The damages alleged and claimed by plaintiff to have resulted from such breach consist of the cost [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 49292
  14. Towanda Textiles, Inc. v. United States (1960)

    This is a suit for the refund of an alleged overpayment of Federal income taxes for the plaintiff's tax year ending June 30, 1956. The record presents two legal issues which may be briefly summarized as follows:


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 468-57
  15. Shapiro v. United States (1947)

    Plaintiff, a Second Lieutenant in the Army of the United States, was convicted by a court martial on September 3, 1943 of violation of the Ninety-Sixth Article of War, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1568, following which he was dismissed from the service on order of the Secretary of War. He alleges that the court martial had no jurisdiction to render the verdict it did and, hence, that the order of the Secretary of War dismissing him from the service, based on the verdict, was illegal. He sues for the salary [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims
  16. Ragonese v. United States (1954)

    On and after November 2, 1942, Frank P. Ragonese and Joseph V. Scaravelli were partners doing business as the Square Construction Company. The partnership will be hereafter referred to as the Square Construction Company, and for the purposes of this opinion will be treated as an entity. It sues for excess costs incurred by reason of encountering quantities of underground water, in the construction of a sewer under a contract with the defendant, in an amount which it says it had no reason to [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 49364
  17. Proper v. United States (1957)

    Plaintiff sues to recover disability retired pay from May 1, 1948, on the ground that the Secretary of the Army acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unlawfully when, on November 28, 1955, on the basis of the recommendation of a military officer of the Army, and contrary to the recommendation of the civilian board for the Correction of Military Records, he denied plaintiff's application for correction of his military record.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 203-54
  18. Ramsey v. United States (1951)

    Plaintiffs in this action are the trustees in bankruptcy of the Sterling Manufacturing Company, a Nebraska corporation, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Company," which is in reorganization under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 50010
  19. National Forge & Ordnance Company v. United States (1957)

    In the fiscal year ending in 1946 the taxpayer sustained a net operating loss. Under the statute, it is permitted to carry back this net operating loss to reduce the income, first, of the second preceding taxable year, and, second, to the immediately preceding taxable year, etc. After the net operating loss has been applied against the income for the second preceding taxable year, the excess is then applied to the immediately preceding taxable year. Hence, in order to determine the amount the [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 132-56
  20. RM Hollingshead Corporation v. United States (1953)

    The Government has made a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's petition on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action. We summarize the allegations of the petition. The plaintiff was on February 3, 1948, awarded a contract by the United States Public Health Service, Federal Security Agency, for the supply of some 108,000 gallons of 25 percent DDT Concentrate in 5-gallon metal drums. The contract contained the following provisions:


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 50123

1 of 47 Page(s)

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