Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. United States

8 Citing cases

  1. Nager Electric Company, Inc. v. United States

    177 Ct. Cl. 234 (Fed. Cir. 1966)   Cited 71 times
    In Nager Elec. Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 368 F.2d 847, decided today, we reject the position that a contract claim is necessarily barred by 28 U.S.C. ยง 2501 if suit is not brought within six years after completion and acceptance.

    Voluntary efforts thereafter to obtain compensation through executive channels or by negotiation would not defer or toll limitations. See, e.g., Sauer v. United States, 354 F.2d 302, 304, 173 Ct.Cl. ___, ___ (1965); Oceanic S.S. Co. v. United States, 165 Ct. Cl. 217, 218, 225 (1964); Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. United States, 297 F.2d 546, 547, 156 Ct.Cl. 142, 144 (1962); Fattore v. United States, 312 F.2d 797, 800, 160 Ct.Cl. 666, 670 (1963); Empire Inst. of Tailoring v. United States, 161 F. Supp. 409, 410, 142 Ct.Cl. 165, 167 (1958); Ball v. United States, 137 F. Supp. 740, 742, 133 Ct.Cl. 841, 843 (1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 827, 77 S.Ct. 41, 1 L.Ed. 2d 50; Group v. United States, 125 Ct. Cl. 135, 137 (1953); Reliance Motors Inc. v. United States, 81 F. Supp. 228, 230, 112 Ct.Cl. 324, 328 (1948); Withers v. United States, 69 Ct.Cl. 584, 587 (1930). See Battelle v. United States, 7 Ct.Cl. 297, 300 (1871); Bulkley for Use of Wright v. United States, 8 Ct.Cl. 517, 519 (1872); Harrison v. United States, 20 Ct.Cl. 175, 179-180 (1885); Ravesies v. United States, 21 Ct.Cl. 243, 247-248 (1886); Patterson v. United States, 21 Ct.Cl. 322, 323 (1886); Carlisle v. United States, 29 Ct.Cl. 414, 415 (1894); Curtis v. United States, 34 Ct.Cl. 1, 4 (1898).

  2. Friedman v. United States

    159 Ct. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cir. 1963)   Cited 109 times
    Addressing the Court of Claims' jurisdiction with respect to retirement disability pay and claim accrual following a decision of a corrections board

    Congress has certainly shown as much intention to have adverse rulings by the Accounting Office reviewed by this court as it has Correction Board decisions, but if suit is not brought within six years of the original claim such review cannot be had, no matter how erroneous the later Accounting Office ruling may be. See also Cosmopolitan Manufacturing Co. v. United States, No. 168-60, Ct.Cl., and Arlene Coats v. United States, Ct.Cl., 297 F.2d 546, cert. denied, 83 S.Ct. 36. In cases coming before this court in which it has been held that the limitations bar is not tolled or deferred by resort to permissive administrative remedies (see text supra, Part I, B, 4), it is likewise true that arbitrary administrative action cannot be redressed if a timely suit is not begun.

  3. Crown Coat Front Co. v. U.S.

    386 U.S. 503 (1967)   Cited 170 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statute of limitations for bringing suit to contest administrative ruling does not commence until administrative ruling becomes final

    Nor, aside from the decision in this case, have we been cited to any court of appeals decisions in Tucker Act ( 24 Stat. 505) cases, which are contrary to the rule followed by the Court of Claims. The cases cited by the Court of Claims are the following: Electric Boat Co. v. United States, 81 Ct. Cl. 361, 367-368, cert. denied, 297 U.S. 710; Austin Eng'r Co. v. United States, 88 Ct. Cl. 559, 562-564; Holton, Seelye Co. v. United States, 106 Ct. Cl. 477, 501, 65 F. Supp. 903, 907; Griffin v. United States, 110 Ct. Cl. 330, 372-373, 77 F. Supp. 197, 206, rev'd on other grounds, sub nom. United States v. Jones, 336 U.S. 641; Art Center School v. United States, 136 Ct. Cl. 218, 226, 142 F. Supp. 916, 921; Empire Institute of Tailoring, Inc. v. United States, 142 Ct. Cl. 165, 168, 161 F. Supp. 409, 411; International Potato Corp. v. United States, 142 Ct. Cl. 604, 606-607, 161 F. Supp. 602, 604-605; Clifton Products, Inc. v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 806, 809, 169 F. Supp. 511, 512-513; Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. United States, 156 Ct. Cl. 142, 144, 297 F.2d 546, 547, cert. denied sub nom. Arlene Coats v. United States, 371 U.S. 818; Steel Improvement Forge Co. v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 24, 29-30, 355 F.2d 627, 631

  4. Earth Island Institute v. Albright

    147 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 11 times
    In Earth Island, the Federal Circuit held that a movant's unconditional withdrawal of its pending motion deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over that motion and prevents the district court from rendering a decision on the merits.

    In all these cases, however, the court simultaneously granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, thereby resolving the issues in dispute. See Condit v. United Air Lines, Inc., 631 F.2d 1136, 1138 (4th Cir. 1980); Smith v. Travelers Indem. Co., 763 F. Supp. 554, 562 (M.D. Fla. 1989); Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. United States, 297 F.2d 546, 549 (Ct. Cl. 1962); In re White Farm Equip. Co., 23 B.R. 85, 93 (Bankr.N.D. Ohio 1982), rev'd on other grounds, 42 B.R. 1005 (N.D. Ohio 1984), rev'd, 788 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1986). These cases do not address the court's loss of jurisdiction due to unconditional withdrawal of a party.

  5. Oceanic S. S. Co. v. United States

    586 F.2d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1978)   Cited 5 times

    "A claim against the United States first accrues on the date when all the events have occurred which fix the liability of the Government and entitle the claimant to institute an action. Empire Institute of Tailoring, Inc. v. United States, 142 Ct.Cl. 165, 167 (1958), 161 F. Supp. 409, 410; Cosmopolitan Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 156 Ct.Cl. 142, 297 F.2d 546, 547 (1962). Therefore, where a claim is based upon a contractual obligation of the Government to pay money, the claim first accrues on the date when the payment becomes due and is wrongfully withheld in breach of the contract.

  6. United States v. Sams

    521 F.2d 421 (3d Cir. 1975)   Cited 28 times
    Concluding that failure to comply with ยง 2401 deprived the District Court of jurisdiction

    Japanese War Notes Claimants Ass'n v. United States, 373 F.2d 356, 358, 178 Ct.Cl. 630 (1967). See Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. United States, 297 F.2d 546, 547, 156 Ct.Cl. 142 (1962). Cf. Note, "Developments in the Law-Statutes of Limitations," 63 Harv.L.Rev. 1177, 1200 (1950).

  7. CONN v. UNITED STATES

    366 F.2d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1966)   Cited 5 times

    This court has so held in the past. E.g., Holton, Seelye Co. v. United States, 65 F. Supp. 903, 907-908, 106 Ct.Cl. 477, 500-502 (1946); Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. United States, 297 F.2d 546, 547-548, 156 Ct.Cl. 142, 144 (1962). Since such action did not occur with respect to the claims here involved until less than six years prior to filing of the petition in this court, the bar of limitations does not apply.

  8. Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States

    363 F.2d 407 (2d Cir. 1966)   Cited 16 times

    The House Committee Report is explicit on the point and demonstrates that Congress was fully aware of the established law and did not intend to affect it. H.R.Rep.No. 1380, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. (1954), 2 U.S.Code Ad.News, pp. 2191, 2196 (1954), see Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. United States, 297 F.2d 546, 549, 156 Ct.Cl. 142, cert. denied, sub nom. Arlene Coats v. United States, 371 U.S. 818, 83 S.Ct. 36, 9 L.Ed. 2d 60 (1962).