Case law

Foote v. United States

23 Ct. Cl. 443 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 5, 1888

This was clearly erroneous. Neither the Secretary of State nor the President had authority to fix the salary of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. … The claimant declined the new appointment tendered him, and never qualified by taking the oath and giving bond as required by law.

Dunham v. Secretary of the Dept. of Health & Human Services

18 Cl. Ct. 633 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 22, 1989

Immunization records from the Davis County Immunization System establish that Tess Dunham received a DPT vaccine in the United States, specifically, the state of Utah, thus fulfilling the requirements of parts (A) and (B) … The June 6, 1989, order clearly provided petitioners with such an option.

Gaines v. United States

131 F. Supp. 925 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 7, 1955

C., to Region 1, continuing employment in a temporary status pending the establishment of a register. … Lacking classified civil-service status plaintiff was not qualified to be retained in preference to a nonveteran in groups I and II.

Northern California Central Services, Inc. v. United States

591 F.2d 620 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1979

At present, all seven member hospitals qualify for income tax exemption under § 501(c)(3), although at the time of filing for an exemption with the IRS, one hospital qualified only under § 501(c)(4). … operated exclusively for charitable purposes) but by hospitals qualifying for tax exemptions under § 501(c)(4) (nonprofit organizations established for "the promotion of social welfare.”)

Derek & Dana Contracting, Inc. v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,356 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 25, 1985

Although the record is deficient with respect to precise details, it does establish that some kind of an agreement was worked out (no document was offered in evidence establishing this fact, however) between ROFEC, D & D … Mclntire states that "... the abstract of bids clearly identifies ... Mr. Jerome D. Weller, Contracting Officer____”) Further, Mr.

Marcus v. United States

473 F.2d 896 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 16, 1973

The question remains, however, as to whether plaintiff qualified for the protection of the Act. … Defendant says plaintiff here clearly falls outside of this prescription, his former *548 work being of a different type and in a different Government agency.

Bianco v. United States

171 Ct. Cl. 719 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1965

In the absence of a qualifying statement on the Standard Form 50 or of any antedated documentary evidence showing the intent of the appointing officer to pay a higher rate than that established on the effective dates of the … Under the regulations then in effect failure, as here, to include a qualifying statement or other satisfactory evidence explaining the absence of a qualifying statement on Form 50 precludes a retroactive adjustment of the

Day v. United States

21 Ct. Cl. 262 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 12, 1886

Do the facts bring the case within the reason and spirit of the administrative law established and recognized by the decisions ? … While we have no disposition to qualify or restrict the doctrine of what we have heretofore decided in cases like the one at bar, we have no disposition to extend it so as to include transactions.not falling clearly within

Walden v. United States

22 Cl. Ct. 532 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 20, 1991

The Board of Veterans Appeals established a service connection for plaintiff's PTSD on August 30, 1983. … The scope of judicial review is narrow: To overturn the board’s decision, plaintiff must prove by cogent and clearly convincing evidence (1) a material legal error or injustice in the correction board proceeding and (2) an

Strahle v. United States

602 F.2d 344 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 18, 1979

This is not a case in which the misrepresentations of an agent of the Government caused plaintiff to waive a vested right to which he was clearly entitled. … The DCSPER is aware of the need to establish some type of program to enable continued utilization of recently commissioned OTRA officers who, under current policy, could not qualify for retirement under 10 U.S.C., Section

Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. United States

479 F.2d 1342 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1973

Whether the disputed data qualified under the “significant sums” criteria ? III. … This burden was clearly discussed by the Board in a previous case, American Bosch Anna Corp., 65-2 BOA ¶ 5280.

Cole v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 1018 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 24, 1992

Richardson found him qualified for general military service. Dr. … Standard of Review Plaintiff is bound by the AFBCMR’s determination that decedent, Major Cole, was physically fit for duty at the time of his discharge from the Air Force, unless she can establish by “cogent and clearly convincing

World Publishing Co. v. United States

57 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 5, 1921

just and shall take effect at such time and upon such notice as he may direct; that the Interstate Commerce Commission on a complaint “ shall ” enter upon a hearing concerning the justness and reasonableness of any order establishing … It might be said that had Congress intended to confer jurisdiction it would have clearly so provided. It did, in terms, confer jurisdiction of claims of a different character arising under this act.

A & S Council Oil Co. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,656 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 28, 1989

No mitigating procedure was available under the program to modify the FMP once a qualified entity accepted a section 8(a) subcontract from SBA. … by any such qualified businesses. .

Adelson v. United States

553 F. Supp. 1082 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 27, 1982

Clearly the dominant motivation for the loans was to advance taxpayer’s business as a financial consultant. … One can see that the facts in the instant case are even more persuasive since the plaintiff here was clearly engaged in a trade or business as a financial consultant where it is much easier to draw a proximate and direct

Eli Lilly and Company v. The United States

372 F.2d 990 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 17, 1967

in tax avoidance and does not clearly reflect the incomes of the related organizations. … There is no doubt that the record here clearly establishes the existence of sound and well-considered business reasons for the pricing policies adopted.

Bivens v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 339 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 19, 1985

Eisberg again examined the plaintiff, on October 8, 1980, and again concluded that he was not qualified to perform any duty at the Shipyard and classified him as “III-B,” permanent nonwork status. … A claimant, therefore, must look beyond this jurisdictional statute and establish an express waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to his claim. United States v.

Merson v. United States

173 Ct. Cl. 92 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1965

It is unfortunately many years since the acute episode so that diagnostic investigations are of somewhat limited value in establishing an exact etiology. … However, it was also stated: * * * * * 4. * * * Navy medical records show very clearly that CnR Merson contracted a severe case of malaria, while serving on Guadalcanal in 1943.

Emeco Industries, Inc. v. United States

485 F.2d 652 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 17, 1973

In the first place, the article clearly allows the Government to— * * * accept any item or group of items of any offer, unless the offeror qualifies his offer by specific limitations. … Plaintiff Belied, on Defendemos Acts to Its Detriment The record clearly establishes that plaintiff relied on defendant’s action and/or inaction to its detriment.

Fehrs v. United States

556 F.2d 1019 · United States Court of Claims · May 18, 1977

While it is not our function to reconcile other decisions of the Tax Court * * * we find the instant case clearly distinguishable. … The long established test as to whether a transaction is equivalent to a dividend was set *82 forth by the Supreme Court in United States v.