Charles M. Tatelbaum, Assignee for the Benefit of the Creditors of A. Hoen & Co., Inc. v. The United States, 749 F.2d 729 (Fed. Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Charles M. Tatelbaum, Assignee for the Benefit of the Creditors of A. Hoen & Co., Inc. v. The United States, 749 F.2d 729 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bio-Medical Applications of Aquadilla, Inc. v. United States (uscfc, 2014-12-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bio-Medical Applications of Aquadilla, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2014 · confidence medium
Contracts “within the purview of the Contract Disputes Act ,;. must be for the direct procurement of goods or services by an executive agency of the government.” Id. at 1027-28 (citing New Era Constr. v. United States, 890 F.2d 1152, 1157-58 (Fed.Cir.1989); Tatelbaum v. United States, 749 F.2d 729, 730 (Fed.Cir.1984)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tektel, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2013 · confidence medium
Tatelbaum v. United States, 749 F.2d 729, 730 (Fed.Cir.1984) (citing 41 U.S.C. § 602 (1982) (current version at 41 U.S.C. § 7102 (2012))). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Colonial Press International, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2013 · confidence medium
See United States v. Allison, 91 U.S. 303, 306, 307 (1875) (holding that the superintendent of the public printing officer, a predecessor of the GPO, the “government printing-office,” “is not under the control of any one of the executive departments,” and “is more responsible to Congress than to any other authority”); see also Mayo v. United States Gov’t Printing Office, 9 F.3d 1450, 1451 (9th Cir. 1993); Tatelbaum v. United States, 749 F.2d 729, 730 (Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Colonial Press International, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2013 · confidence medium
See United States v. Allison, 91 U.S. 303, 306, 307 (1875) (holding that the superintendent of the public printing officer, a predecessor of the GPO, the “government printing-office,” “is not under the control of any one of the executive departments,” and “is more responsible to Congress than to any other authority”); see also Mayo v. United States Gov’t Printing Office, 9 F.3d 1450, 1451 (9th Cir.1993); Tatelbaum v. United States, 749 F.2d 729, 730 (Fed.Cir.1984) (citing Int’l Graphics, Div. of Moore Bus.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1995 · confidence medium
Tatelbaum v. United States, 749 F.2d 729, 730 (Fed.Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Maitland Bros. Co. v. Sheila Widnall, Secretary of the Air Force
Fed. Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Tatelbaum v. United States, 749 F.2d 729, 730 (Fed.Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G.E. Boggs & Associates, Inc. v. Ronald W. Roskens, Administrator of the Agency for International Development (2×)
Fed. Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Co. v. United States, 753 F.2d 1053, 1054 (Fed.Cir.1985); Tatelbaum v. United States, 749 F.2d 729, 730 (Fed.Cir.1984); North Am.
discussed Cited "see" Parker v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tatelbaum v. United States, 749 F.2d 729, 730 (Fed.Cir.1984) (holding that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not have jurisdiction under the CDA to review decisions by the United States Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals, because it was not part of the Executive Branch); see also Roflan Co. v. United States, 7 Cl.Ct. 242, 248 (1985) (applying Wunderlich standard of review to a contract dispute where the contract was entered into before the effective date of the CDA); Dravo Corp. v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 416 , 594 F.2d 842, 843 (1979) (same…
cited Cited "see" OTI America, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See OTI I, 68 Fed.Cl. at 109 n. 2 (citing Tatelbaum v. United States, 749 F.2d 729, 730 (Fed.Cir.1984), and Fry Communications, Inc. v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 497, 502-03 (1991)).
cited Cited "see" OTI America, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tatelbaum v. United States, 749 F.2d 729, 730 (Fed.Cir.1984); Fry Communications, Inc. v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 497, 502-03 (1991).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles M. TATELBAUM, Assignee for the Benefit of the Creditors of A. Hoen & Company, Inc., Appellant,
v.
the UNITED STATES, Appellee
Appeal 84-1046.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Dec 11, 1984.
749 F.2d 729
Alan M. Grochal, Melnicove, Kaufman, Weiner & Smouse, P.A., Baltimore, Md., argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Thomas C. Wheeler, Pettit & Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel., Stephen R. Bergenholtz, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Sandra P. Spooner, Washington, D.C.
Bennett, Miller, Smith.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
BENNETT, Circuit Judge.

Charles M. Tatelbaum, assignee for the benefit of the creditors of A. Hoen & Company, Inc. (Hoen), appeals the decision of the United States Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals, Panel 9-82 (October 21, 1983), sustaining the Government Printing Office’s (GPO) setoff of amounts owed to GPO by Hoen on two defaulted contracts against amounts which GPO owed to Hoen on two unrelated completed contracts. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27, the United States moves this court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In his opposition to the motion of the United States to dismiss, Tatelbaum requests this court to transfer the instant appeal to the appropriate court, rather than dismiss it. The government did not object to this request in oral argument. We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Accordingly, we transfer the instant appeal to the United States Claims Court, assuming, without deciding, that it has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1982).

GPO awarded Hoen five contracts during 1979 and 1980. Of the four contracts which are relevant to this appeal, Hoen had completed two and had partially completed the other two when it ceased its business on April 10, 1981. On April 15, 1981, GPO terminated the five contracts for default due to Hoen’s inability to perform. On April 16, 1981, the Circuit Court of Baltimore City declared Hoen insolvent, assumed jurisdiction over the Hoen estate, and appointed Tatelbaum and Edward F. Shea, Jr., assignees. After reprocuring the two uncompleted contracts, GPO set off the excess costs which it had incurred ($122,702.38) against the amount which it owed Hoen on the four contracts ($98,-460.45). Tatelbaum argues that the United States has thus received impermissible preferred treatment over Hoen’s other creditors by extending the setoff to the $34,-030.79 which it owed Hoen on two completed contracts.

A prerequisite to this court assuming jurisdiction over an appeal from a decision of a board of contract appeals is that the decision by the board must be pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. § 607(g)(1) (1982). 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10); North American Corp. v. United States, 706 F.2d 1212 (Fed.Cir.1983). The Contract Disputes Act only applies to contracts of an “executive agency.” 41 U.S.C. § 602. GPO does not fall within the 41 U.S.C. § 601(2) definition of an “executive agency.” See International Graphics v. United States, 4 Cl.Ct. 186, 197 (1983). Because GPO is not an “executive agency” within the meaning of the Contract Disputes Act we are without jurisdiction to decide this appeal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, we transfer this case to the United States Claims Court.

TRANSFERRED.