Case law

Allstate Insurance v. United States

530 F.2d 378 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1976

which *4 Allstate either paid or reimbursed included the items listed in the margin. 2 Allstate’s moving expense policy was adopted for various business reasons, including Allstate’s desire to have at all times the most qualified … And as we clearly demonstrated herein, supra, the presence or absence of notice was the critical distinguishing factor in the Humble cases.

Hydromar Corp. of Delaware & Eastern Seaboard Pile Driving, Inc. v. United States

38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,366 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 4, 1992

Such an approach, which clearly runs counter to the applicable standard of review, should be of no avail to Hydromar in this appellate review process.” … The Board made its finding on the basis of witnesses’ credibility, an evaluation which the presiding judge is uniquely qualified to make. 14.

Bentley v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 403 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 19, 1983

However, defendant must do more than merely allege that a mistake occurred, and in this instance it has not established that any error was made when Dander approved the LQA under his initial decision. … The government has withdrawn this argument as a reason for Bentley’s failure to qualify under JTR C4108.

Whitmire v. Cherokee Nation

30 Ct. Cl. 180 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 18, 1895

I suggested that he appoint some person properly qualified, who should be instructed to be present at all examinations, and whose duty it should be to call my attention to any attempt at fraud, and who should see the manner … at tbe date of said treaty, or wbo bad returned thereto within sis months of said last-mentioned date, and their descendants, were admitted into and became a part of tbe Cherokee Nation and entitled to equal rights and immunities

Tax Analysts v. United States

11 Cl. Ct. 802 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 24, 1987

Further, defendant contends that none of the expenses claimed, except the filing fee, qualifies under the taxable costs provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1920 or Appendix I of the RUSCC and therefore should not be awarded. … Kansas City followed Columbus Fruit, holding that only litigation fees are recoverable, but extrapolated on that holding, stating that “Accordingly, the court need only determine the position of defendant to see if it was ‘clearly

Anderson v. United States

143 Ct. Cl. 729 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 8, 1958

Anderson died *734 and Kenneth Ward Anderson has duly qualified and is now acting as executor of the estate of the deceased. … Definitions. — (a) The term “head of the department” as used herein shall mean the head or any assistant head of the executive department or independent establishment involved, and the term “his duly authorized representative

Northern Paiute Nation v. United States

10 Cl. Ct. 401 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 8, 1986

Further, establishing the amount involved “would clearly depend upon proof of the special facts and circumstances pertinent to the particular [allottee].” Absentee Shawnee Tribe, supra, 165 Ct.Cl. at 515 . … This case is therefore clearly inapposite to the situation at bar, and arguably its converse- here the statute and case law interpreting it clearly forbid suits advocating individual interests.

Biener GmbH v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,701 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 8, 1989

The court cannot now rewrite a provision so clearly stated in the guise of interpretation. Id. at 733 . … Waldman qualified his comments shortly before this statement: I couldn't be precise without research. Id. at 58 .

Taylor v. United States

22 Cl. Ct. 335 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 23, 1991

Moreover, the quantum of evidence required to successfully challenge an administrative discharge generally must be “cogent and clearly convincing.” Wronke v. … The Naval Recruiting Manual provides that civilian ophthalmologists are considered qualified to make statements concerning all diseases and conditions of the eyes.

Ambrose Whitefoot and Minnie Whitefoot v. United States

293 F.2d 658 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1961

This, however, is clearly not such a case, for Ambrose has failed to establish that he has been deprived of “any compensable interest” in his cableways, as he must do to recover under paragraph 2(e). … “It clearly appears, from the foregoing cases, that the powers of an Indian tribe are not limited to such powers as it may exercise in its capacity as a land owner.

Fairchild Industries, Inc. v. United States

648 F.2d 1313 · United States Court of Claims · May 6, 1981

With respect to the claimed loss carryforward, the board’s explanation conceded that— Republic Aviation Corporation may have ceased to exist * * * [but] * * * Fairchild, the acquiring corporation, did not establish, within … The correct answer clearly is that the determination of a carryforward is not the only machinery in renegotiation by which the fairness of defendant’s treatment of its suppliers may be refined to mitigate the crude impact

Kinetic Structures Corp. v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,015 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1984

In fact, the statement itself, qualified by the language “or words *395 to that effect/’ cannot be the basis for this Court’s finding of a genuine issue of material fact. … Therefore, this violation is clearly not the type of violation that will allow the plaintiff any recovery of his bid preparation costs.

Red Lake Band v. United States

17 Cl. Ct. 362 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 28, 1989

It is well established that the doctrine of sovereign immunity requires that the United States must consent to suit before any claim will lie against it. Testan v. … wasteful category to some clearly helpful one.

Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States

9 Cl. Ct. 336 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 15, 1986

Congress clearly did not intend that claims that accrued some 16 to 32 years after August 13, 1946 be immune by judicial fiat from the jurisdictional cut-off date it established. … Clearly, the circumstances are not significantly comparable. .

Peterson v. United States

292 F.2d 892 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1961

Examined on 30 May 1945, and found “physically qualified for honorable conditions discharge” with defects noted relative to false teeth and defective vision. … The Court of Claims’ rulings clearly establish that the original recommendation of the Board should have been followed by the Secretary and the complete relief to which Mr. Peterson legally was entitled, given to him.

Lucas v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,269 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 14, 1992

This legislation charges the ABMC with the responsibility for establishing the memorial. … The government, by awarding 18 awards in exchange for design concepts, qualifies as a buyer, while the designer is the seller.

Forward Communications Corp. v. United States

608 F.2d 485 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 17, 1979

The report of the Industrial Appraisal Company does not qualify under Rule 803(6) for other reasons as well. … Krehbiel, who had prepared appraisals incident to 300 sales of newspapers, was well-qualified to value an entire newspaper business.

Skaw v. United States

13 Cl. Ct. 7 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 30, 1987

Plaintiffs called 16 witnesses, four of whom were qualified as experts; defendant called nine witnesses, two of whom were qualified as experts. Posttrial briefing was completed on May 1, 1986. … Further exploration clearly was needed before development work to mine the gravels would be reasonably appropriate.

Cleek Aviation v. United States

20 Cl. Ct. 766 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 13, 1990

In the Federal Circuit, the standard for establishing excusable neglect is strict. Prestex, 4 Cl.Ct. at 17. … Excusable neglect is limited to “unique and extraordinary circumstances,” and few situations will ordinarily qualify. Reinsurance Co. of America, Inc. v.

Central Eureka Mining Co. v. United States

138 F. Supp. 281 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 20, 1956

Shortly after the establishment of WPB’s predecessor agency, the Office of Production Management, an operating division known as the Labor Division was established in OPM to study and keep abreast of the labor requirements … Nor, we think, is there anything in the doctrine of sovereign immunity which requires us to adopt such a view as regards Government agencies.