J.C. Equipment Corp. v. England

12 Citing cases

  1. C.D. Hayes, Inc. v. U.S.

    No. 01-376 C (Fed. Cl. Nov. 30, 2006)   Cited 124 times

    A claim for the conversion of a default termination into a termination for the convenience of the government is separate and distinct from monetary claims for termination costs and claims for equitable adjustment. See J.C. Equip. Corp. v. England, 360 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that a claim for equitable adjustment did not present a claim for conversion of a default termination to a termination for convenience); Armour of Am. v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 587, 590 (2006); DePonte Invs., Inc. v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 112, 116 (2002). In addition, a claim must be "clear and unequivocal" so that a contracting officer has "adequate notice of the basis and amount of the claim."

  2. Jones v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.

    98 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2024)   Cited 3 times

    It would be inappropriate for us to reweigh that factual evidence, particularly the credibility of each witness. See, e.g., J.C. Equip. Corp. v. England, 360 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that Board's "determinations of witness credibility are virtually unreviewable" because it "saw the witnesses and heard the testimony" (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted)).

  3. Taylor & Sons v. United States

    No. 2020-1185 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 29, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    "'The fact-finder has broad discretion in determining credibility'" of witnesses. J.C. Equip. Corp. v. England, 360 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Bradley v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). On appeal, plaintiffs challenge both of the Claims Court's rulings.

  4. Boeing Co. v. Sec'y of Air Force

    983 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 4 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Applying same interpretive rules to regulations and statutes

    (C) not supported by substantial evidence. Id. ; see also J.C. Equip. Corp. v. England , 360 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Under the Contract Disputes Act, however, Board decisions on factual questions are final unless, among other things, they are not supported by substantial evidence."). In light of that statutory framework for our review, before we can reach the merits of the partiesโ€™ arguments about the factual dispute over whether Boeing's proprietary legend restricts the government's rights, we must first determine whether the Board made a "decision" on that factual question.

  5. CCI, Inc. v. McHugh

    2014-1470 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2015)

    The Board has "broad discretion in determining credibility because he saw the witness and heard the testimony." J.C. Equip. Corp. v. England, 360 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, "[t]he Board's determinations of witness credibility are virtually unreviewable."

  6. Buckner v. U.S. Postal Serv.

    554 F. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    The Board did not rely on the badge evidence alone, but as corroboration of other evidence, including testimony from Petitioner and witnesses. See J.C. Equip. Corp. v. England, 360 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The trier of fact's responsibility is to determine the weight (if any) to be given all of the evidence, whatever its charac- ter."). No error has been shown in the presentation of digital badge evidence.

  7. Fiori v. U.S.

    292 F. App'x 22 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

    The Board credited the testimony of the technician and based its decision in part on that credibility determination. Such determinations are virtually unreviewable on appeal. See J.C. Equip. Corp. v. England, 360 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We therefore conclude that the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence.

  8. Babauta v. Dept. of Defense

    270 F. App'x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

    Credibility determinations, such as these, are virtually unreviewable by this court. J.C. Equipment Corp. v. England, 360 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Accordingly, this court agrees that the record shows no malfunctioning of the POS-TR system for the products at issue during the relevant time frames.

  9. N. Arapaho Tribe v. Cochran

    548 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Wyo. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    As this dispute arises under the Contract Disputes Act, the Court's review is de novo , and the Tribe has the burden of proof. 41 U.S.C. ยง 7104(b)(4) ; J.C. Equip. Corp v. England , 360 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

  10. GROT, INCORPORATED v. U.S.

    Case No. 03-1951C (Consolidated) (Fed. Cl. Oct. 5, 2007)

    Nonetheless, the Plaintiff is correct in its contention that a claim for improper default termination is distinct from other claims arising under the contract. See J.C. Equip. Corp. v. England, 360 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Armour of Am. v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 587, 590-91 (2006) (holding that breach of contract claims present different factual and legal issues and are distinct and separate from a claim for improper default termination). Therefore, while the Plaintiff may maintain these claims, the question remains whether they are valid.