Case law

Dehne v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 606 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 3, 1991

The procedure is drastic and should be used only when clearly appropriate. See Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1971) (citing C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts 62 (2d ed. 1970)). … In this inquiry, the court need not find a separate waiver of sovereign immunity in the substantive provision. The Tucker Act itself provides the necessary consent. United States v.

Hyatt Roller Bearing Co. v. United States

43 F.2d 1008 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 20, 1930

These values are clearly warranted and are fully established by the evidence. … We have examined sueh sales in the light of all of the other facts established by the testimony, and values based upon sueh contention are clearly shown not to be a fair basis for arriving a,t the actual cash values of the

Bienville v. United States

34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,457 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 10, 1988

Discussion With respect to the three elements that must be established to justify a § 1631 transfer, defendant has admitted the first. … Moreover, at all times while thereat, the Claims Court clearly did not have jurisdiction regarding any contract or tort claim averred therein for the reasons previously stated.

Ward v. United States

178 Ct. Cl. 210 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1967

It is only where the decision of the board is clearly unsupported by substantial evidence or when there was a noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations, that this court may interfere with the findings of the correction … Preliminary examination of your naval record and review of the material submitted by you fails to establish a sufficient basis for further action by this Board.

George H. Whike Construction Co. v. United States

140 F. Supp. 560 · United States Court of Claims · May 1, 1956

Damages cannot flow from sovereign acts unless Congress waives the Government's sovereign immunity. … However, plaintiff sought to take care of the contingency by submitting a qualified bid, which could have been rejected by defendant.

Journeycake v. Cherokee Nation

28 Ct. Cl. 281 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 24, 1893

There is also a significant provision attached to the law allowing citizenship by intermarriage which shows how clearly the communal character of the property of the Nation is recognized; that is to say, property of which … What, then, were these “rights and immunities” which the Delawares acquired by becoming “members of the Cherokee Nation?”

Pasco Enterprises v. United States

13 Cl. Ct. 302 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1987

In short, the position of defendant is that clearly there is no express contract between it and Pasco since the government was not a party to Micro’s lease agreement with Pasco. … Mere allegations of co-existent concern do not establish intent to contract.

Brown v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1984

On the other hand, positive indicia on the issue indicate that plaintiff’s voting residence was clearly in Tennessee, plaintiff paid taxes to the IRS regional office that covers Tennessee, and he never formally established … (Emphasis added.) 19 The case law under sections 911(a)(1) and 871 establishes clearly that plaintiff would be considered a bona fide resident of Germany under the Internal Revenue Code.

Ashgar v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 226 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1991

Plaintiff maintains that since his termination was erroneously characterized as one “for cause,” he rightfully qualifies under section (b) to be paid severance pay. … This unambiguous provision clearly applies to the plaintiff here, who is a Pakistani citizen employed in Pakistan.

Adam v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 782 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1992

Even OPM’s predecessor, the Civil Service Commission, has instructed that: “[njumerous judicial precedents have firmly established the principle[ ] that: ... … Attachment to FPM Letter 551-7, at 9. *789 Plaintiffs’ activities are clearly not what is contemplated in the FPM Letter as “support” services.

Schmidt v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 24 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 30, 1984

Without need to consider section 6013(e)(1)(A), plaintiff clearly fails to meet the requirements of sections 6013(e)(1)(B) and (C). … Section 6013(e)(1)(B) To meet this requirement, plaintiff must establish that in signing the 1977 tax return she did not know of, and had no reason to know of, the omitted income.

Russell Manufacturing Company v. United States

175 F. Supp. 159 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1959

Thus, under subsections (A), (B), and (C) of § 23 (p) (1), Congress permitted contributions made by employers to the so-called “qualified” plans to be deducted in the taxable year when paid. … reflect the income, the computation shall be made in accordance with such method as in the opinion of the Commissioner does clearly reflect the income.” 26 U.S.C.A. § 41 .

Community Services, Incorporated v. The United States

422 F.2d 1353 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 20, 1970

In the case at hand, it is clear that plaintiff established the Life Insurance Company of Virginia as the trustee or guardian of the contributions which plaintiff was to make under the plan. … We agree with defendant that if it were possible for plaintiff to terminate the trust and recover the funds for its own use, then clearly such a possibility would disqualify the trust.

Addison Miller, Inc. v. United States

70 F. Supp. 893 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1947

In another respect defendant was clearly to blame: Plaintiffs asked authorization to be permitted to employ 117 skilled and semi-skilled workers of their own choosing. … It is undoubtedly the rule, of course, as plaintiffs say, that uncertainty as to the amount of the damage does nor preclude recovery where the fact of damage is clearly established. Story Parchment Co. v.

Otis Elevator Company, a Maine Corporation v. The United States

301 F.2d 320 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 4, 1962

It had 10 branch establishments in these countries, which in 1950 had a total of 1,977 employees and a total payroll of $2,188,-464. … A determination that the plaintiff did not make any purchases outside this hemisphere would clearly and simply resolve the matter in plaintiff’s favor.

Atlantic National Bank v. United States

536 F.2d 1354 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 16, 1976

Clearly under § 6321 we must hold that plaintiff’s argument cannot be sustained. In Glass City Bank v. … “(B) LIMITATION ON QUALIFIED PROPERTY. — The term ‘qualified property’, when used with respect to a commercial transactions financing agreement, includes only commercial financing security acquired by the taxpayer before

Oglebay Norton Co. v. United States

610 F.2d 715 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 14, 1979

To qualify for the investment tax credit, Oglebay Norton must establish that the reconstructed vessels constitute *759 section 38 property and specifically that "depreciation is allowable” on the reconstructed Ashland, Fitzgerald … The adoption of this position would help defeat the congressional goal of building 300 ships in the ensuing decade. 60 To hold for defendant would negate the clearly established congressional intent. 61 VIII.

Mackenzie-Kennedy v. United States

85 Ct. Cl. 405 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 1, 1937

The record we think establishes the fact that the Patent Office had knowledge and notice that the patent could not be granted except under the Nolan Act and that under judicial precedents long established this court must … This is not a case of a mere declared immunity of the Government from liability for its own torts.

Furlong v. United States

153 Ct. Cl. 557 · United States Court of Claims · May 3, 1961

Plaintiff testified that who shot him on September 12, 1945, had never been definitely established. … Hyman David Shapiro, a qualified neurologist and psychiatrist; Dr. Joseph Bogers Young, a qualified surgeon, and Dr. John Thomas Lord, a qualified neurosurgeon, testified as expert witnesses for plaintiff. Dr.

Nolan Bros., Partners ex rel. Nolan Bros., Inc. v. United States

98 Ct. Cl. 41 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1942

If these two rules had been established prior to the time the contract was executed, or if plaintiff had been given notice in advance of the execution of the contract that defendant proposed to establish such rules, an entirely … Certain of the items of damage and excess costs have been very definitely and clearly proven. Others are incapable of exact determination.