Case law

Constant v. United States

1 Cl. Ct. 600 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 19, 1982

However, plaintiff was unable to construct and demonstrate a prototype prior to the deadline of March 15, 1972, established by the Port of New York Authority. … “Permit A” clearly authorized the disclosure of plaintiff’s invention to agencies of the Federal Government.

Leesona Corp. v. United States

599 F.2d 958 · United States Court of Claims · May 16, 1979

Krupp, 224 U.S. 290, 305 (1912), clearly construed it as following the Harlan theory. … However, as noted above, it is axiomatic that any suit against the government requires an express waiver of the government’s immunity from suit.

Nichols & Co. v. United States

156 Ct. Cl. 358 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1962

When sample is drawn by a public warehouse employee, the covering certificate shall be qualified with the words typed in all capital letters WAREHOUSE SAMPLE. … But, if in doubt, or if the quality of a lot was irregular and the grade not clearly defined, it was necessary to examine as many as 30 or more cases.

Atlantic Dredging Co. v. United States

53 Ct. Cl. 490 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 3, 1918

The evidence establishes that probing is the method used on the Delaware River to ascertain the character of material below. … Nor do the facts found otherwise establish a case authorizing a recovery.

Mary Catherine Willett v. The United States. Joseph William and Mary Grace Willett v. The United States. Robert E. And Anne T. Willett v. The United States. Charles D. Willett v. The United States. Paul A. And Elizabeth H. Willett v. The United States

406 F.2d 1346 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 14, 1969

corporation, and that any sale made to Metzger's clients would have to be in the form of the sale of the corporate stock — all subject to the approval of the stockholders and subject to their being assured that the sale would qualify … The fact that the Willetts did not discourage inquiries about the purchase of their interests in the partnership during the period they were preparing to incorporate and begin the case goods business seems to us clearly outweighed

Pikesville Home Builders, Inc. v. United States

160 Ct. Cl. 541 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 6, 1963

The circulars gave -.a rather florid description of these tracts as a part of an established .expanding Baltimore community. … If the latter information is not clearly indicated in the bid, the Seller reserves the right to accept sucfi bid on all or any portion it may choose.

Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 80 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 22, 1985

Jackson). 9 The Federal Government, as the sovereign, is immune from suit, unless it expressly consents to be sued. United States v. … The remaining two reservation tribes are apparently unwilling or unable to clearly define their reasons for continuing this litigation.

Liles Construction Co. v. United States

455 F.2d 527 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1972

A constructive change, on the grounds urged by appellant, has not been established. Plaintiff urges that the change was express, not constructive, but we deem this a matter of semantics not decisive to the result. … From this and the other cited material, it must be concluded that plaintiff’s claim was clearly and unequivocably presented as a claim for an equitable adjustment due to an express or constructive change, ordered as to the

Zuckman v. United States

524 F.2d 729 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 22, 1975

The regulation applicable to partnerships states that an organization qualifying as a limited partnership under state law may be classified for tax purposes as an association if, after the standards in the regulation dealing … Clearly if, as plaintiff contends, the fact of “control” alone constitutes a sufficient basis in law for holding J. H.

Cushing v. United States

22 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 6, 1886

L., 578), by Justice Patterson “ a qualified state of hostility,” “war quoad-hoc," and by Justice Chase “ limited partial war.” … Such is the substance of the twenty-fifth article, whosé object as clearly expressed is not to affix penalties, but to avoid “ dissensions and quarrels.”

Government Systems Advisors, Inc. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,937 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 28, 1990

Whenever the United States casts off its cloak of sovereign immunity to engage in a business-type activity with a business-minded purpose, it must be treated as engaging in commercial activities and comply with the usual … The clearly expressed purpose of each delivery order was for defendant to take title to the word processors after completion of a condition precedent, i.e., a series of specified monthly payments, or buy-out.

Humble Oil & Refining Company v. The United States

442 F.2d 1362 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1971

Clearly, however, this is not so as shown by a number of defendant's own rulings. … When the Company transfers you, it expects to bear the reasonable costs of the move, and has an established policy, known as the Resettlement Policy, that sets up the guidelines for all transfers.

New York Mail & Newspaper Transportation Co. v. United States

154 F. Supp. 271 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 31, 1957

And I think that in the instant case, the facts and circumstances show even more clearly that no responsible or qualified concern was prevented from entering the competition to render the service sought by the Postmaster … With respect to certain of its claims, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has not established its right to recover.

Otis Elevator Co. v. United States

618 F.2d 712 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 19, 1980

This business was wholly conducted in various countries in South *29 and Central America, through branch establishments located in those countries. … The earlier of the two prior decisions articulated the law to be followed, the second case (the 1966 decision) relying on the holding established by the first opinion.

DeWitt v. United States

204 Ct. Cl. 274 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 17, 1974

Thus we find in the facts of this case the well-established requisites for concluding that a bona fide gift was made to the Academy by DeWitt. … These decisions disclose that courts will attach conclusive substance to the form chosen by the parties unless one can demonstrate rather clearly that the form chosen is not an accurate reflection of its substance.

Deuterium Corp. v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 454 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 9, 1989

The objectives of the ’506 patent *466 were met by the accused process with regard to the recovered steam, to which step (d) is clearly limited. … Accordingly, the doctrine does not operate to establish infringement of step (f).

Snyder v. United States

196 Ct. Cl. 413 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 12, 1971

I am a person of established mental psychosis as evidenced by any and all governmental medical records available for review of records. 24. … However, the record clearly shows that plaintiff was entitled to pay in some form or other during the period in question.

Aaron v. United States

160 Ct. Cl. 295 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1963

The public has a right to travel in this air space with the same freedom and the same immunity as it has to travel the public highways or navigable waters. … The evidence does not show clearly which of the jet aircraft referred to in this statistical information were operated by Air Force personnel and which were operated by company personnel during the flight-tests.

Irolla v. United States

390 F.2d 951 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 16, 1968

Statements the taxpayer that are clearly favorable to him have been skillfully and artfully interpreted by the government by inference and innuendo in such a way as to give them a meaning never intended by him, and as so … Commissioner, supra at 820, wherein it was stated: * * * Although the existence of fraud may be gathered from circumstances, the piling of inference upon inference hardly qualifies as the clear and convincing evidence by

Degenaars Co. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,186 · United States Court of Claims · May 18, 1983

The court is constrained to qualify the Release as apparently executed, because it is not signed by plaintiff, although it appears to be signed by Rae for the purpose of receipting a *490 check from the United States to Degenaars … Plaintiff does not allege merely inadvertent or negligent mistakes, but pervades its pleadings with insinuations of scienter, which, if properly presented would mean that “the petition would clearly have to be dismissed as