Justly; rightly. | Justly; rightly; equitably. With substantial correctness. ...
United States Court of Claims Court Cases
This is a suit by Cotton Land Company, a corporation in liquidation, and several of its stockholders for compensation for land which, the plaintiffs say, the Government has taken from the company by its construction and operation of Parker Dam.
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 46422
Lemly v. United States (1948)Plaintiff is a Naval Reserve Officer on inactive duty and on the honorary retired list of the United States Naval Reserve. He is drawing no retirement pay and the Navy Department has denied his eligibility thereto although he alleges he incurred a disability while on active service which, though known to the Navy at the time he was released from active duty, was not revealed to him. Plaintiff claims therefore the retired pay and allowances accorded by statute to an officer in the Regular Navy [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 47665
These are appeals from decisions by the Indian Claims Commission, Docket No. 11. See 2 Ind.Cl.Com. 335;id. p. 500. The Indians have appealed from the Commission's final determinations in the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action. The Government has appealed from the Commission's final determinations in the third and fourth causes of action and from the Commission's final determination on off-sets.
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 1-54
Chalender v. United States (1954)
Plaintiff sues to recover an alleged loss sustained in the performance of a construction contract with the defendant. The petition is in two counts. Count I seeks recovery under the War Contracts Hardship Claims Act, also known as the Lucas Act, and Count II is a claim for breach of contract.
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 49091
Plaintiff, a training school for veterans under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 284, 38 U.S. C.A. § 693 et seq., seeks recovery of the difference between the amount paid by the Veterans Administration for training veterans from January 1, 1950 through March 31, 1951, and the amount it should have received if entitled to be paid at the rate of its claimed customary cost of tuition. Plaintiff alleges it acquired the customary cost of tuition rate by reason of a series of [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 287-57
On March 19, 1945, the co-partnership of W. A. Foote and W. J. Russell entered into a contract with the United States for the construction of a certain fire alarm sprinkler supervisory system at the Tooele Ordnance Depot near Tooele, Utah, the total price of which, as modified, amounted to $15,305.00. Article 16 of this contract contains the customary provision that monthly partial payments will be made to the contractor based upon estimates made and approved by the local contracting officer, [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 48690
The plaintiffs, taxicab operators, seek to recover from the United States sums of money paid by them to the Fort Leonard Wood Exchange pursuant to contracts between the parties. Defendant has moved for summary judgment on the ground that no genuine issue of fact is involved and as a matter of law, plaintiffs' petitions must be dismissed. For the legal conclusion to show that there is no jurisdiction in this court, reliance is placed upon this court's opinion in Borden v. United States, 116 [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 328-56, 329-56
Kehm Corp. v. United States (1950)On October 8, 1943, the plaintiff contracted with the United States to manufacture for the Navy 2,800 concrete practice bombs, 2,500 to be 100-pound bombs and 300 to be 1,000-pound bombs. Plaintiff had two plants, one at Miami, Florida, where the 1,000-pound bombs were manufactured, and one at nearby Fort Lauderdale, where the 100-pound bombs were manufactured. The completed bombs were to include tail assemblies which were to be furnished by the defendant. Delivery of the bombs, complete with [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 48580
Egan v. United States (1958)This is an unusual case of mistaken identity and almost incredible negligence, as a result of which plaintiff, an officer in the United States Marine Corps Reserve, was denied his promotion to captain on March 1, 1943, was illegally and erroneously released to inactive duty on October 28, 1943, and was illegally discharged from the Marine Corps Reserve on April 11, 1944. Plaintiff sues to recover the active duty pay and allowances which he claims were due him and were wrongfully withheld from [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 50031
The plaintiff made a contract with the Government for the construction of a Post Office building at New Castle, Pennsylvania. While the work was under way, the Government issued a telegraphic stop order, which is quoted in finding 5. This stop order was not lifted for 113 days, and the plaintiff was actually stopped in its work for 109 days. It claims that the stop order with its consequent delay was a breach of the contract and seeks damages. The Government undertook, at the hearing before the [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 44617
The plaintiff sues for the extra costs which it incurred because, it says, it was required to use different and more expensive material than that called for by its contract with the Government, and was required to perform work and furnish material in addition to that called for in the contract.
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 90-55
Newton v. United States (1958)
This is an action to recover income taxes and interest assessed thereon which have been paid by the plaintiff for the years 1945 and 1946. The sole issue presented is whether or not the plaintiff filed timely claims for refund as required by section 322(b) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 322(b) (1). The facts necessary for an understanding and determination of the case are as follows:
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 391-55
Ernest L. Wilkinson and Robert W. Barker, Washington, D. C., and Aaron, Aaron, Schimberg & Hess, and Adams, Moses & Culver, all of Chicago, Ill., Ralph Montgomery Arkush, New York City, Theodore C. Bonney, Seneca Falls, N. Y., Brown, Dashow & Ziedman, and Dempsey, Mills & Casey, Chicago, Ill., Dykema, Jones & Wheat, Detroit, Mich., Earle & Reilly, New York City, Harrison, Thomas, Spangenberg & Hull, Cleveland, Ohio, Blake, Voorhees & Stewart, New York City, [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: Appeals Docket No. 4
Plaintiff sues to recover $11,492.93, plus overhead and profit, for increased labor costs incurred in the performance of a lump sum construction contract entered into with defendant September 21, 1944, covering a certain canal improvement and reconstruction project of the Corps of Engineers, War Department, on the St. Mary's Falls Canal in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The increased costs resulted from the payment by plaintiff of a higher wage rate to carpenters working on the project than that [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 46696
By order entered May 3, 1948, plaintiff's motion for a new trial was allowed and the findings of fact, conclusion of law and opinion, filed February 2, 1948, 75 F.Supp. 474 were vacated and withdrawn.
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 47004
Plaintiff, Houston Ready-Cut House Company, is a prefabricator of dwelling houses. Plaintiff, Liberty Builders, Inc., is a corporation having the same officers and stockholders as Houston Ready-Cut House Company and is engaged in erecting houses prefabricated by that company. On April 2, 1942, both corporations entered into a written contract with the United States whereby they agreed to prefabricate, transport, construct, and erect 500 dwelling units at a proposed defense housing project site [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 47793
The plaintiffs made contracts with the Government to perform parts of the construction of the Cornhusker Ordnance Plant at Grand Island, Nebraska. The plaintiff in the first named suit had a separate contract, the plaintiff in the second named suit had two contracts and the two plaintiffs in the third named suit had, as joint contractors, two contracts. Each contract was a separate contract. The cases are treated together because the same findings of fact relate, in large part, to all of them, [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 45999, 46592, 46593
This case is before the court pursuant to H.R. Resolution No. 475, 83d Congress, 2d Session, by which the court has been requested to determine whether plaintiffs have a legal or equitable claim against the United States, and the amount, if any, legally and equitably due thereon, and to report its conclusions to the House.
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: Cong. 1-54
Cuiffo v. United States (1955)
Plaintiff was employed as a blocker and bracer at the New York Port of Embarkation, Brooklyn, New York, at an hourly wage of $1.67 for daytime work, and $1.83 an hour for night-time work. He was discharged, effective September 30, 1952, but was restored to duty on August 3, 1953. He sues for his pay in the meantime.
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 199-54
In 1906 the plaintiff leased certain gas and electric properties to The Consolidated Railway Company for a term of 999 years. In the lease the lessee covenanted to pay all the taxes which might be imposed upon the lessor in relation to the leased property. By reason of subsequent transfers, subleases, and a merger, the lessee's interest came into the ownership of a company, herein called the Power Company, which assumed all the obligations of the lease. The Power Company and the plaintiff made [...]
Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 595-53