Case law

Kelly v. United States

138 F. Supp. 244 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1956

qualified to assume the duties of the position of rating specialist, occupational. … Civil Service Regional Office’s affirmance of the Boston regional office’s actions on the ground that the order was complied with, was clearly erroneous, and on the ground of interchangeability was irrelevant and is not binding

Northern Indian Housing & Development Council v. United States

12 Cl. Ct. 417 · United States Court of Claims · May 28, 1987

All claims brought into the court involve the United States and thus involve waiver of sovereign immunity. Porter v. … The court finds no reason to depart from the long-established principle that this court will not set aside an administrative decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious or clearly amounts to an abuse of discretion.

Kalkines v. United States

473 F.2d 1391 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 16, 1973

Many knowledgeable people believed that a specific immunity statute was necessary before anybody in the Federal Government could assure criminal immunity to individuals, including employees, being questioned in noncriminal … This portion of the interview is set forth in the footnote. 7 *581 The essential aspects are four: First, in describing a “conduct” investigation the agent clearly indicated that a criminal investigation or trial was still

Kolar, Inc. v. United States

650 F.2d 256 · United States Court of Claims · May 20, 1981

Moreover, the undisputed facts before the court do not establish that the bombs were not demilitarized. … The plaintiff also relies on Technical Order 11A-1-60 to establish that the minimum requirement for demilitarization is certification by qualified personnel that the material is inert.

Walsh v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 539 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 24, 1983

Thus, in order to clothe this court with jurisdiction in a federal tax refund suit, it must be clearly shown and established that, prior to filing a petition here, the taxpayer has previously filed an administrative claim … action, this court clearly lacks jurisdiction to entertain the subject litigation.

Ruben ex rel. Ruben v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

22 Cl. Ct. 264 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 3, 1991

Clearly, courts have allowed exceptions to these general rules of statutory construction. See, e.g., Willis v. … Clearly, the fact that the state oversees this guardianship provides some level of protection against waste and mismanagement.

Lyons v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 723 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 22, 1989

(Colonel) Bonner concluded that the “[ejvidence of record established beyond all reasonable doubt that [plaintiff] was medically qualified for continued active duty, that he was not psychotic, neurotic, or suffering from … It must be clearly understood that [plaintiff] was evaluated on three different occasions by qualified psychiatrists at Sheppard AFB, Tx and Wildford Hall Medical Center and there was never any evidence of a psychosis, neurosis

Institut Pasteur v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,500 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 7, 1986

Plaintiff alleges that since November of 1982 it has pursued various avenues of scientific research concerning the disease, first identified in 1981, of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). … Clearly, if a contracts) is involved in this matter, it comes within the definition of “procurement” as set forth in 41 C.F.R. § 1.1-209 (1983), which includes the concept of barter.

United Electric Corp. v. United States

647 F.2d 1082 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 22, 1981

Our suit is against an independent establishment having the power to sue and be sued. [ 508 F.2d at 959 .] … The controlling axiom is that the United States may be sued only to the extent that it allows its sovereign immunity to be waived.

Bradley v. United States

14 Cl. Ct. 741 · United States Court of Claims · May 3, 1988

pay structure is established for BEP Plate Printers.” … The court may overturn such a decision only if there had been an abuse of discretion, or if it is “ ‘so arbitrary as to be clearly wrong.’ ” Adams v.

Gerber v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 311 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 20, 1983

They clearly were not and cannot be causes for a retroactive medical separation since the record clearly shows the applicant to have been medically qualified for duty. 4. … However, the plaintiff’s alleged disability does not qualify as legal disability.

Hayes Big Eagle (1), Ruby Bolton (2), and Charles Whitehorn (3) v. The United States

300 F.2d 765 · United States Court of Claims · May 9, 1962

The taxpayer here is a citizen of the United States, and wardship with limited power over his property does not, without more, render him immune from the common burden.” … The first of these, as laid down by the decisions, is that tax exemptions must be clearly expressed and cannot be granted by implication.

Potter v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

22 Cl. Ct. 701 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 25, 1991

. §§ 300aa-l — 300aa-34 (West Supp.1990), and the Vaccine and Immunization Amendments of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-502 (1990) (“the Act”). … Sperry & Hutchinson Co.], 511 F.2d [225] at 229) [9th Cir.1975], (3) the court’s findings are clearly erroneous (Deitchman [v. E.R.

Transpace Carriers, Inc. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,971 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 21, 1990

The last amendment to the Preliminary Agreement altered the criteria which Transpace was required to meet in order to qualify for the takeover and provided that the deadline for Transpace to qualify was May 31, 1986. … TCI has not advanced a reasonable interpretation, and has therefore failed to establish that the contract is ambiguous. .

Lovett v. United States

9 Ct. Cl. 479 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1873

This view seems to me to be entirely at variance with all well-established rules governing the establishment of a contract through “ a request on the one side and an assent on the other.” … In fact, the court seldom inquires into the magnitude or effect of this diversity; if it clearly exists, that fact is enough.” *498 Iu the light of the doctrines thus succinctly and clearly stated, let us first see what the

Hendricks v. United States

210 Ct. Cl. 266 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 16, 1976

It long has been established, of course, that the United States, as sovereign, “is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued * * * and the terms of its consent to -be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction … The plaintiffs'did hot qualify finder Section 253:135.

Walters v. United States

358 F.2d 957 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 15, 1966

In December of 1954, the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery rated plaintiff physically qualified for recall to active duty incident only to mobilization. … The evidence presented to the Correction Board some nine years later, however, establishes in retrospect quite clearly that plaintiff’s condition was incapacitating and permanent.

Sharkey v. United States

17 Cl. Ct. 643 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1989

To state a claim under the takings clause, plaintiffs must establish that they owned property which the United States took for a public purpose. … The United States is immune from suit except to the extent it waives that immunity. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814 , 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1976 , 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976).

Mike Mizokami, Sam Mizokami, Tom Mizokami, and Hatsuyo Mizokami v. The United States

414 F.2d 1375 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1969

It is clear that Priv.L.No. 88-346, supra, constitutes a waiver of the sovereign immunity which defendant could otherwise claim in this case. … This claim is clearly barred by Sec. 2680(h) of the [Tort Claims] Act. * * * We think the first cause of action, for negligence, is also barred.

Parker v. United States

461 F.2d 806 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 16, 1972

To establish a program of Selective Training and Reenlistment incentives for qualified career motivated enlisted men. *664 «2. » * * » * “3. Background. … The incentives in the STAR Program are available to qualified personnel In all ratings.”