Case law

Richard Walter Ricker and Oswald Bryan Salyer v. The United States

396 F.2d 454 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 14, 1968

Furthermore, the Secretary may designate qualified line officers to sit on staff officer continuation boards if ever there is an insufficient number of qualified staff corps officers. … Thus, in terms of sheer availability of qualified officers for each type of board, there is a rational distinction between the two types of boards to support (if necessary) the distinction clearly drawn by Congress.

Monterey Life Systems, Inc. v. United States

635 F.2d 821 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 13, 1980

Congress enacted this program in 1965 to establish the federally funded health insurance program known as Medicare. … However, we find it unnecessary to decide that question because we think that on the merits it clearly cannot recover. III.

Mayer v. United States

201 Ct. Cl. 105 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 16, 1973

, the added benefit of Beserve ■retirement pay at age 60, if otherwise qualified. … However, in this case tbe Board, as clearly shown by tbe record of its proceedings, gave a full and fair consideration to plaintiff’s claim.

Grav v. United States

14 Cl. Ct. 390 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 4, 1988

If the statute is construed as an offer, then the statute is clearly an Act of Congress mandating payment to plaintiff such as is necessary for jurisdiction to be lodged in this court. … Thus, the court must rely upon an established maxim of statutory construction to determine the will of Congress. The maxim of ejusdem generis applies here.

L'Enfant Plaza Properties, Inc. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,681 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 11, 1983

It was a breach of a lease of real property for which there is an established measure of recovery for delay in vesting possession. … Use of the term “all damages” does not serve as an express waiver of sovereign immunity and a general waiver of sovereign immunity does not reach attorney’s fees unless Congress clearly says so.

Cox Construction Co. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,660 · United States Court of Claims · May 16, 1989

Construing “the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved,” 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(2)(A)(ii), the Court stated: [This phrase] must refer to attorneys ‘qualified for the proceedings’ in some specialized … Clearly, Congress intended the $75 rate as a cap, not a floor.

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 201 · United States Court of Claims · May 11, 1992

The Settlement Act clearly 4 and solely provided a forum in *204 which the Tribe could present its claims. It did not create or acknowledge a substantive right to relief, as required by Mitchell II. … What is lacking in the perfection of the waiver of sovereign immunity is not jurisdiction in this court, but substance in the plaintiff’s claim.

Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. v. United States

21 Cl. Ct. 731 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 2, 1990

The Secretary is not provided with authority to establish a general exception to the requirement that a DISC must qualify under IRC § 992(a)(1). … If the account receivable due the DISC is paid within 90 days after it is established or deemed to be established, the account receivable will be treated as a trade receivable, and thus a qualified export asset, as of the

Glick v. United States

25 Cl. Ct. 435 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 10, 1992

These materials are in addition to the pleadings, are not excluded by the court, and are adequate to establish the facts that are material to plaintiffs claim. … There is no evidence that he was suffering a mental condition that would qualify as a legal disability during the limitations period.

George v. United States

166 Ct. Cl. 527 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 12, 1964

Inasmuch as you are in the excepted service, you have reassignment rights to any position of the same or lower grade in your competitive area for which you are fully qualified, and which is either vacant, occupied by an employee … It is the opinion of this office that the foregoing clearly establishes that you have not acted on a timely basis in connection with the various aspects of your case and that the information furnished this office by you fails

Principal Mutual Life Insurance v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 616 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 30, 1992

The government argues that in order for a reserve established pursuant to an accident and health insurance policy to qualify as a life insurance reserve, the terms of the policy must be unalterable at their inception. … To adopt taxpayer’s interpretation, all health and accident policies would qualify under Section [801(b)] at the time a disabled reserve is established since they all would become noncancellable at that time.

Drucker v. United States

498 F.2d 1350 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 19, 1974

for professorial status then they clearly qualified as a matter of law for upper category slotting, is supported by neither the 1968 agreement nor the law of the case. … Where an exercise of administrative discretion is involved, the action will be disturbed only if plaintiffs succeed in establishing that it is “so clearly wrong” as to be arbitrary. Albert v. United States, 194 Ct.

Claude F. Salter v. The United States

412 F.2d 874 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1969

However, plaintiff was found mentally and physically qualified for duty and then reassigned to another department. … In this salient respect, the facts in this case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in Bennett v.

Begay v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 107 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 7, 1987

The court then held that the statutes and regulations in question clearly established a fiduciary duty that could be “fairly interpreted” as mandating compensation for damages. … These are clearly not recoverable. Duncan v. United States, supra, 229 Ct.Cl. at 139 , 667 F.2d at 48 .

Gentry v. United States

551 F.2d 852 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 1, 1977

dependency, from that which proved critical and fatal to the statute in Jimenez , where one subclass of illegitimates was forbidden to establish the dependency conclusively presumed to exist in others. … An independent reason why de Castro does not control the result in this case is that, as we said in the earlier opinion, the purpose of the Civil Service Retirement Act, as amended, is not clearly limited to the granting

MacConnell v. United States

217 Ct. Cl. 33 · United States Court of Claims · May 17, 1978

She admits that she cannot qualify as an eligible widow under the plan by virtue of her second marriage to SFC MacConnell. … Congress clearly did not intend such a result.

Griffin v. United States

215 Ct. Cl. 710 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 22, 1978

. § 1491 , must show a clear-cut entitlement to monetary relief, under law apart from the Tucker Act, the latter simply waiving sovereign immunity and providing the forum for adjudication. … We think clearly, under authority of Berdan and Padbloc, at the end of step 3, the Secretary had become bound by an implied contract.

Compagnie Flnanciere de Suez et de L'Union Parisienne v. United States

492 F.2d 798 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 20, 1974

It granted de Lesseps the authority to establish a company to construct and operate the canal. … There is much dispute whether either site is clearly indicative of the Company’s domicile for the purpose of determining nationality.

Lincoln National Life Insurance v. United States

582 F.2d 579 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1978

Consequently, Lincoln’s reserve for term insurance policies and rider conversions clearly qualifies as a "life insurance reserve” under § 801(b). IV. … This would seem to qualify the reserve.

Eagle v. United States

300 F.2d 765 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 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.