The George Hyman Constr. Co. v. United States, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
The George Hyman Constr. Co. v. United States, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
63 citation events (30 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: David McDaniel v. Department of the Treasury (mspb, 2026-02-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" David McDaniel v. Department of the Treasury
MSPB · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
Initial Appeal File, Tab 23, Initial Decision at 6-8; see Social Security Administration v. Whittlesey, 59 M.S.P.R. 684 , 692 (1993) (observing that, generally, live testimony is more probative than an out-of-court statement), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed.
cited Cited "see" Rodger Reid v. Department of Transportation
MSPB · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Social Security Administration v. Whittlesey , 59 M.S.P.R. 684 , 692 (1993) (stating that a sworn statement has greater weight than one that is unsworn), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed.
cited Cited "see" Harold J Sharp v. Department of the Air Force
MSPB · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Social Security Administration v. Whittlesey , 59 M.S.P.R. 684 , 692 (1993) (stating that a sworn statement has greater evidentiary weight than one that is unsworn), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Webster Hester v. United States Postal Service
MSPB · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
IAF, Tab 6 at 54-55, 78, Tab 29 at 29; see Social Security Administration v. Whittlesey, 59 M.S.P.R. 684 , 692 (1993) (stating that a sworn statement has greater weight than one that is unsworn), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed.
cited Cited "see" Mary Reid v. Department of the Air Force
MSPB · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Social Security Administration v. Whittlesey, 59 M.S.P.R. 684 , 692 (1993) (explaining that a sworn statement carries greater weight than one that is unsworn), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Elizabeth R. Ilagan v. Department of Veterans Affairs
MSPB · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
PFR File, Tab 3 at 25-28; see Office of Hearings and Appeals v. Whittlesey, 59 M.S.P.R. 684 , 692 (1993) (explaining that a sworn statement has greater weight than one that is not), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed.
cited Cited "see" Eric Rose v. Department of Defense
MSPB · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
RID at 4-5; see Social Security Administration v. Whittlesey, 59 M.S.P.R. 684 , 692 (1993) (live testimony is more probative than an out-of-court statement), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed.
cited Cited "see" Frank J. Maino v. Department of the Treasury
MSPB · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
IAF, Tab 41 at 7; see Social Security Administration v. Whittlesey, 59 M.S.P.R. 684 , 692 (1993) (a sworn statement has greater weight than one that is not sworn), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Valerie Ann Thompson v. Department of the Army
MSPB · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
PFR File, Tab 1 at 10; I-1, IAF, Tab 8, Subtab 4b at 1-3; see Social Security Administration v. Whittlesey, 59 M.S.P.R. 684 , 692 (1993) (a sworn statement has greater weight than one that is unsworn), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed.
cited Cited "see" Hinck v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sceili v. United States, 39 F.3d 1197 , 1994 WL 567011 (Fed.Cir.1994) (table); Kapp v. United States, 989 F.2d 1202 , 1993 WL 26728 (Fed.Cir.1993) (table). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dominic S Davis v. United States Postal Service
MSPB · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
PFR File, Tab 1 at 5; see Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Landlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (reflecting that the burden of proving mootness is on the moving party); Price v. U.S. Postal Service, 118 M.S.P.R. 222 , ¶ 13 (2012) (noting that status quo ante relief requires that the agency remove all references to the rescinded action from the employee’s personnel record); Harris v. Department of the Air Force, 96 M.S.P.R. 193 , ¶ 6 (2004) (same); see also Social Security Administration v. Whittlesey, 59 M.S.P.R. 684 , 692 (1993) (stating that a sworn statement…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Connie Francis Perrin v. Department of the Navy
MSPB · 2016 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
ID at 15; see, e.g., Social Security 5 Administration v. Whittlesey, 59 M.S.P.R. 684 , 692 (1993) (stating that live testimony is more probative than an out-of-court statement), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Gavin v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also McEntee v. United States, 30 Fed.Cl. 178, 183 (1993), aff'd, 39 F.3d 1197 (Fed.Cir.1994) (table decision); Longhofer v. United States, 29 Fed.Cl. 595, 601 (1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The George Hyman Construction Company
v.
United States
94-5044.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Oct 17, 1994.
39 F.3d 1197
Unpublished

39 F.3d 1197

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(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.
The GEORGE HYMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-5044.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 17, 1994.

Before RICH, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

DECISION

1

The George Hyman Construction Company (Hyman) appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Hyman's complaint. The court dismissed Hyman's complaint on the ground that Hyman's claim against the United States was barred by the Severin Doctrine ( Severin v. United States, 99 Ct.Cl. 435 (1943), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 733 (1944)). George Hyman Constr. Co. v. United States, 30 Fed.Cl. 170 (1993). We affirm on the basis of the decision below.

DISCUSSION

2

We agree with the Court of Federal Claims (i) that Hyman's subcontractor, by way of a general release, released Hyman from all claims by the subcontractor relating to the project at issue; (ii) that the language of the release was clear on its face; and (iii) that the court could not have altered the release's clear effect and meaning without engaging in contract reformation which, as both parties concede, it lacked jurisdiction to do.