Case law

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.

Amick v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 426 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 6, 1984

This long established policy of non-liability is bottomed on public policy and not sovereign immunity, but, at any rate, it is a withdrawal of consent to be sued in such cases, if it can be said that such consent had previously … Because they clearly have suffered harm due to Corps error, the equities indicate that some recovery is appropriate.

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.

Parks v. United States

15 Cl. Ct. 183 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1988

Both entered into MDP contracts agreeing to a thirty percent reduction in production below their established base levels of production. … There was no real reduction in production by [Parks] and this clearly defeated the purposes of the program.

Uhley v. United States

147 F. Supp. 497 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 16, 1957

It is not clearly shown in the record whether a physical examination by the Veterans Administration preceded the assignment of such rating. 15. On November 18, 1946, plaintiff was admitted to St. … I was last physically examined on or about 1947 and found physically qualified for general service with waiver.

Anderson v. United States

22 Cl. Ct. 178 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 14, 1990

A careful review of the Air Force regulations (AFR 35-16) on reenlistment establishes clearly that plaintiff had no mandatory or automatic right to reenlistment (emphasis supplied). … Indeed, plaintiff must establish by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the Board determinations are defective. Id. Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden in this regard.

Chisolm v. United States

19 F. Supp. 274 · United States Court of Claims · May 3, 1937

And this-court has often recognized that this immunity enures to the beneficial owners of the economic interest.” … In the réports of the committees of both Houses it is clearly expressed that it is a clarifying amendment due to the erroneous construction placed on the 1926 -act.

Doyle v. United States

20 Cl. Ct. 495 · United States Court of Claims · May 25, 1990

Defendant clearly did not, fraudulently or with any deceitful intent, conceal from plaintiffs their rights under the FLSA. … However, it is a long-established principle of statutory and federal common law that the government may not pay interest on claims against it unless “Congress has intended to waive the United States’ immunity with respect

Hartmann ex rel. Last Will & Testament of Grun v. United States

86 Ct. Cl. 579 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1938

Grun left a ■last will and testament, and codicil thereto, which were duly admitted to probate and established pursuant to the laws and usages of Switzerland and of the city of Lucerne, Switzerland, in the Probate Court of … Clearly this language is broad enough to include claims-not only by citizens of the United States but by aliens,, whether suits upon such claims be instituted individually or in a representative capacity. See Wagner v.

Doe v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 412 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1989

Defendant points out that the Supreme Court’s definition of “substantially justified” is less stringent than the former “clearly reasonable” standard. … The facts shown by plaintiff clearly establish a prima facie case for an award. Defendant’s defense required proof that another person was the original informant.

Warren v. United States

4 Cl. Ct. 552 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 17, 1984

Thus, plaintiff is clearly barred by the statute of limitations from bringing his action before this Court unless he can show that the statute was either waived or tolled. Even if this Court were to assume that Mr. … Smith never filed an application making a claim for annuity benefits, and thus, this Court finds that he could not qualify for them.

Cotter & Co. & Subsidiaries v. United States

6 Cl. Ct. 219 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 30, 1984

In June 1975, plaintiff established a finance department consisting of eight em *224 ployees. … business done with or for [its] patron[s]” qualify under this designation.

Queen v. United States

137 Ct. Cl. 167 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 5, 1956

The notice received by plaintiff was principally weak in that it did not clearly state the nature of the action (i. e., whether reduction-in-force, discharge for cause, or other), erroneously informed plaintiff that he had … Consult the Placement and Employee Delations Section if you desire information on such appeals. *175 You have served in a position established under Section 5 (b) of the Surplus Property Act rather than in accordance with

Mark Smith Construction Co. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,510 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 31, 1986

This is especially true where, as here, we are concerned with waivers of sovereign immunity which must be strictly construed. Soriano v. … Conclusion Defendant’s motion for summary judgment treated by the court as a motion to dismiss, to the extent qualified and discussed herein, is granted.

BMY-Combat Systems Division of Harsco Corp. v. United States

38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,380 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 30, 1992

The non-moving party has the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Metzger, Shadyac & Schwartz v. United States, 10 Cl.Ct. 107, 109 (1986). … However, the law is clear that the United States may condition its waiver of sovereign immunity upon whatever terms it deems appropriate.

Termicold Corp. v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 351 · United States Court of Claims · May 6, 1983

. — With respect to an activity which is of a type generally considered to constitute entertainment, amusement, or recreation, unless the taxpayer establishes that the item was directly related to * * * the active conduct … regulations also quite clearly support the defendant’s interpretation of the statute.

Provost v. United States

60 Ct. Cl. 49 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1924

Quite as clearly he does not in this act as an agent, but assumes a new position. … Again, it is said that the case falls clearly within the first proviso to the statutes.

Edward E. Gillen Co. v. United States

88 Ct. Cl. 347 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 6, 1939

Its bid for the contract having been accepted and bond filed, and having qualified under the terms of the advertisement prior to November 29,1932, plaintiff proceeded to execute the contract at the time being requested by … We think the construction adopted by the District Engineer of specification 18 is definitely erroneous, and the mistaken application he made of the same is clearly demonstrable.

McNulty v. United States

126 Ct. Cl. 573 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1953

For defendant contends, and it clearly appears from the record, that the proposed reclassification of which plaintiff was notified never became effective, and that plaintiff was never downgraded. … For your convenience, there is enclosed a list of Establishment Boards in the State of Florida.