United States Court of Claims Court Cases

Search
  1. Chesterfield v. United States (1958)

    The case, which involves both the issue of validity and the question of infringement, was referred under Rules 45 and 46, Rules of Court of Claims, 28 U.S.C.A. to Donald E. Lane, a trial commissioner of the court. The commissioner was directed to make findings of fact and to recommend legal conclusions in the light of the findings of fact, applicable statutes, and legal principles involved.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 49230
  2. PETER KIEWIT SONS'CO. v. United States (1957)

    Ward E. Lattin, Washington, D. C., and W. C. Fraser, Omaha, Neb., for plaintiffs. Gardner, Morrison & Rogers, Washington, D. C., and Fraser, Crofoot, Wenstrand, Stryker & Marshall, Omaha, Neb., were on the briefs.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 283-52
  3. Caddington v. United States (1959)

    Plaintiff seeks to recover the difference between 75 percent of the pay of a lieutenant colonel with over 24 years of service, which he has been receiving, and 75 percent of the pay of a colonel with over 24 years of service, to which he claims he is entitled, from September 17, 1945, the date of his retirement from the Army for physical disability. There is no dispute as to any material fact.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 408-57
  4. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. United States (1951)

    1. The individual and partnership plaintiffs in both of these cases are all citizens and residents of the State of North Carolina and the corporate plaintiff is organized under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business in the State of North Carolina. The plaintiff McDevitt & Street Company is a corporation formerly known as the J. J. McDevitt Company. Mr. Edward W. Grannis, named as a party plaintiff in each of the petitions as originally filed, has since died, [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 47210, 47211
  5. Broome v. United States (1959)

    This case was referred by the court, pursuant to Rule 45(a), 28 U.S.C., to Mastin G. White, a trial commissioner of the court, with directions to make findings of fact and recommendations for conclusions of law. The commissioner has done so in a report filed October 17, 1958. When the more than 15 days provided by Rule 46(a) had elapsed after the filing of this report, and neither party had given notice in writing of an intention to except to the recommendations and findings of the trial [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 225-56
  6. Gordon v. United States (1956)

    This is an action by a major, U. S. Marine Corps, retired, who was transferred to the retired list of officers on July 1, 1939, with longevity credit for continuous service since 1917. He subsequently was recalled and served on active duty from January 19, 1942, to May 12, 1943, when he resumed inactive status on the retired list. Plaintiff is now seeking to recover the difference in retired pay received by him from May 13, 1943, to date of judgment, and that to which he believes he is [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 106-55
  7. Little v. United States (1957)

    The plaintiff, doing business as the Southern School of Insurance in Jackson, Tennessee, engaged in the education and training of veterans under Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 58 Stat. 287, § 400, 38 U.S.C.A. § 701(f); Veterans' Regulation No. 1(A), pt. 8, 38 U.S.C.A. following section 745, from October 15, 1947, to August 4, 1949.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 565-53
  8. Kronner v. United States (1953)

    The original plaintiffs in this proceeding were Ernest E. Wemp and Lila A. Wemp, husband and wife, of Detroit, Michigan. After the hearing before a Commissioner of this court, Ernest E. Wemp died, and Lila A. Wemp and William O'Neill Kronner, as duly qualified executors of his estate, were substituted in his stead.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 49512
  9. Columbia Basin Orchard v. United States (1955)

    On March 6, 1950, we dismissed plaintiffs' petition on the ground that their right of action was barred by the statute of limitations. 88 F.Supp. 738, 116 Ct. Cl. 348. Thereafter, Congress passed an Act on May 21, 1954, 68 Stat. Part 2 p. A53,[1] conferring jurisdiction on us to hear plaintiffs' claim "notwithstanding the lapse of time * * *," and the case is now before us on the merits.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 48674
  10. Koppers Company v. United States (1955)

    David W. Richmond, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff. Robert N. Miller, Frederick O. Graves, Miller & Chevalier, Washington, D. C., E. S. Ruffin, Jr., and C. M. Crick, Pittsburgh, Pa., were on the briefs.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 161-52
  11. Borden v. United States (1953)

    The contract stipulated that the employer might terminate the contract if it regarded the services of the employee as unsatisfactory, and might withhold salary for all claims against employee for fraud, breach of contract or negligence.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 49855
  12. Volentine and Littleton v. United States (1956)

    The plaintiff partnership had a contract with the Government to clear the timber from the site of the reservoir which was to be created by the Whitney Dam on the Brazos River in Texas. It sues to recover alleged extra costs which it incurred because of the Government's actions, and liquidated damages assessed against it by the Government. The plaintiff says that while it was performing the contract, the Government closed the dam and thereby inundated the lower part of the plaintiff's work.

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 62-54
  13. Bateson-Stolte, Inc. v. United States (1959)

    This is a suit for $193,637.95 in additional expenses incurred by plaintiff in the performance of a Government contract. The defendant has moved the court for judgment on the pleadings dismissing plaintiff's petition on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In an opinion dated May 7, 1958, this court denied defendant's motion without prejudice in order to allow plaintiff to amend its petition to allege the substance of those portions of the subject contract [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 141-57
  14. Burkhardt v. United States (1949)

    On February 6, 1940, the Willow River Power Company, predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs in the present case, filed suit No. 45067 in the Court of Claims to recover for the loss of the power capacity of its hydroelectric plant, located near the confluence of the Willow River and the St. Croix River, caused by the action of the United States in raising the water level of the St. Croix River by the erection of a dam described as the Red Wing Dam. The dam erected by the United States, by [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: Cong. No. 17851
  15. Art Center School v. United States (1956)

    Plaintiff, an educational institution, in this action seeks to recover the difference between its customary rate and the rate it was paid under an agreement entered into initially on September 23, 1946, for the vocational rehabilitation of disabled veterans pursuant to Public Law 16, 57 Stat. 43, Regulation No. 1(a), pt. 8, 38 U.S.C.A. following section 745 which rate was, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, also charged by plaintiff for instruction and training furnished to [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 228-53
  16. Newark Insurance Company v. United States (1959)

    William F. Kelly and Geoffrey Creyke, Jr., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff and third party defendant, Pioneer Bank & Trust Co., respectively. Hudson, Creyke, Lipscomb & Gray, Washington, D. C., Richard H. Nicolaides and W. V. T. Justis, Herndon, Va., and Nathaniel E. Wheeler and Hans W. E. Seltmann, New York City, on the briefs.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 515-56
  17. Loftis v. United States (1948)

    Plaintiff brought this suit under a unit price contract with defendant to recover additional compensation in the total amount of $904,390.98 which he alleges became due him under the terms of the equitable adjustment provisions of Article 4 of the contract, quoted in finding 21. It is claimed that this amount, computed at $1.50 per cubic yard as a fair price for certain excavation, less 37 cents per cubic yard paid, should be allowed by reason of unknown and latent subsurface conditions [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 46078
  18. PETER KIEWIT SONS'CO. v. United States (1947)

    The Government has demurred to the plaintiffs' petition. We therefore state the facts as the plaintiffs have alleged them in their petition. On October 30, 1943, the plaintiffs, three corporations acting as joint contractors and co-adventurers, entered into a contract with the Government for the grading required for the proposed extension and reconstruction of the air field runways at Hensley Field, Texas. The contract fixed unit prices per yard for the amounts of earth to be moved, and the [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 47562
  19. Rosengarten v. United States (1960)

    These actions for the recovery of income taxes for the year 1945, $34,837.90 plus interest as to plaintiff Herbert Rosengarten, and $16,164.38 plus interest as to plaintiff David Rosengarten, have been consolidated by stipulation because of the similarity of the questions presented.


    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 307-56, 308-56
  20. CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NAT. BANK & T. CO. v. United States (1953)

    The plaintiff is the successor to each of the partners of the N. P. Severin Company, a partnership whose members are now deceased. The partnership, which will be called the plaintiff in this opinion, on June 22, 1935, entered into a contract with the United States, which acted through the agency of the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works. The contract was for the construction of a low-cost community housing project at Indianapolis, Indiana, which project became known as the [...]

    Court: United States Court of Claims Docket: 45741

3 of 47 Page(s)