David L. Vestal v. Dep't of the Interior, 861 F.2d 728 (Fed. Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
David L. Vestal v. Dep't of the Interior, 861 F.2d 728 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
68 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Perry v. United States (uscfc, 2020-06-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Perry v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Constant v. United States, 861 F.2d 728 , 1988 WL 94630, at *1 (Fed.
cited Cited "see" Kiewit Construction Co. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Weeks Dredging & Contracting, Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 193, 218 (1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 728 (Fed.Cir.1988).
discussed Cited "see" Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
Co., 86-1 BCA ¶ 18,719 , at 94,172; see Weeks Dredging & Contracting, Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 193, 219 (1987) (noting that either Type I or Type II “differing site condition claim ‘stands or falls upon what is indicated in the contract documents’”) (citation omitted), af f'd 861 F.2d 728 , 1988 WL 90751 (Fed.Cir.1988).
discussed Cited "see" H.B. Mac, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Weeks Dredging & Contracting, Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 193, 218 (1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 728 (Fed.Cir.1988); Neal & Co. v. United States, 36 Fed.Cl. 600 (Fed.C1.1996) 26 Based upon the foregoing legal principals and the evidence presented by the parties with respect to these six indispensable elements during trial, the court makes the findings of facts and draws the corresponding conclusions of law which follow. 1.
discussed Cited "see" Youngdale & Sons Construction Co. v. United States (2×)
Fed. Cl. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Weeks Dredging & Contracting, Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 193 (1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 728 (Fed.Cir.1988).
cited Cited "see" Constant v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Constant v. United States, 861 F.2d 728 (Fed.Cir.1988) and to sanction him.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Trafalgar House Construction, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Gov’t PT Brief at 6 (citing PX 1, part 6 at 109-121/121); see also Weeks Dredging & Contracting, Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 193, 221-22 (1987) (holding that “various material descriptions contained in ... 156 boring logs were intended to depict for the prospective bidders the general character and nature of the materials expected to be found in the subsurface project area reasonably contiguous to where the borings were taken” and not that “the boring logs ... were ipso facto a reliable, intended, and definitive indication of the reasonably approximate ... quantity of each of …
cited Cited "see, e.g." Constructora Andrade Gutierrez, S.A. v. American International Insurance
D.P.R. · 2003 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Egyptian American Bank v. United States, 13 Cl.Ct. 337, 341-344 (1987), affd', 861 F.2d 728 (Fed.Cir.1998). 6 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David L. Vestal
v.
Department of the Interior
88-3190.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Sep 20, 1988.
861 F.2d 728
Unpublished

861 F.2d 728

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
David L. VESTAL, Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR, Respondent.

No. 88-3190.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 20, 1988.

Before BISSELL, ARCHER and MICHEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Petitioner, David L. Vestal, seeks review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (board), Docket No. SEO3518810039, sustaining the reduction-in-force (RIF) action of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines (agency), in which petitioner's position was eliminated and holding that petitioner was properly offered a position as a WG-6 Warehouse Worker. We affirm.

2

The board held that the agency established by a preponderance of the evidence that it properly invoked and applied RIF regulations. We are convinced there was substantial evidence to support that decision and the board's determination that Vestal's position was abolished as part of a valid reorganization. See 5 C.F.R. Sec. 351.201(a) (1988). Accordingly, the board correctly rejected Vestal's contention that the RIF action was improperly motivated.

3

The board also found that the agency placed an individual of a higher tenure group and subgroup than Vestal in the Production Controller position, which Vestal claims he should have received. We find no error in the board's conclusion that Vestal was, therefore, not entitled to that position.