Case law

Moore v. United States

21 Cl. Ct. 537 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 12, 1990

Prior to 1970 the Tucker Act did not waive immunity from suits against the United States based on contracts with the AAFES. In 1970 Congress amended the Tucker Act to permit suits by contractors with the AAFES. Pub.L. … Plaintiffs take the position that the need for the requisite contract to establish jurisdiction under the Tucker Act is not the dispositive issue.

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.

Kephart v. United States

75 F. Supp. 1020 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 1, 1948

These cases are both clearly distinguishable from the case before us. In Insular Police Commission v. … It must be done by specific legislation clearly disclosing such intention.

Western Electric Co. v. United States

564 F.2d 53 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 19, 1977

It is understood that private lines and PBX systems generally will immediately qualify for this exemption. … Our view of the intent of section 4252(d) is, we think, also clearly supported by the statutory language itself.

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.

Wheeler v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 686 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 27, 1983

Case authority relied upon by plaintiffs clearly defines the law as to the lack of jurisdiction of this court to grant declaratory relief. … The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established the Nation’s first statutory minimum wage and overtime rate for work in excess of a prescribed maximum number of hours per work week.

Dunwoody v. United States

22 Ct. Cl. 269 · United States Court of Claims · May 2, 1887

Davis, J., delivered the opinion of the court ; The National Board of Health was established by an act approved March 3,1879 (Supp. Rev. Stat., § 480, and 20 Stat. … After the passage of this act claimant qualified as disbursing officer.

Gentry v. United States

546 F.2d 343 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 17, 1976

Congress has established the Court of Claims to try just such controversies.” … with or dependency on the insured, and thus qualify for benefits.

Columbus Fruit & Vegetable Cooperative Ass'n v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 525 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 9, 1985

Although the Government does not proceed unreasonably by attempting to establish conflict in the circuits, the legislative history does not immunize defendant from a fee award on the ground that it is reasonable to pursue … United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 446, 463 (1983), the TEFRA does not establish a base hourly rate.

Merson v. United States

401 F.2d 184 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 17, 1968

In Walters, supra, (p. 226), the court stated that new evidence presented to a Correction Board nine years after release “establishes in retrospect quite clearly that plaintiff’s condition was incapacitating and permanent … Navy medical records show very clearly that CDR Merson contracted a severe case of malaria while serving on Guada [1] canal in 1943.

Pohl Corp. v. United States

22 Cl. Ct. 849 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 29, 1991

Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 397-98 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 952-53 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976). 1 This court long has acknowledged that it must construe strictly Congress’ waiver of sovereign immunity, and may not expand that waiver by implication … However, even were the court to rule on the issue, which clearly it cannot, because the interpretation of the Agreement is not necessary to the resolution of this case, such a ruling would not constitute binding precedent

Giknis v. United States

19 Cl. Ct. 721 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 20, 1990

The question in the case is whether his resignation qualifies as an involuntary separation for purposes of severance pay entitlement under 5 U.S.C. § 5595 (1988). … Accordingly, the only question we face here is whether, on the facts recited, plaintiff’s resignation can be considered involuntary, thereby establishing his right to severance pay.

Boland v. United States

169 Ct. Cl. 145 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1965

However, the Navy regulations establishing the Correction Board provide in part: § 723.3 Application for correction. (e) Review of application. … Plaintiff also noticed that at times his jaw “seemed to jerk a little bit or tremble” and that he “could not speak clearly.”

Bankers Farm Mortgage Co. v. United States

69 F. Supp. 197 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 6, 1947

Anthony' who at all times since has been, and now is, the duly qualified receiver of the bank. . … The decided cases establish the principle which was applied in Smith v.

Pete v. United States

531 F.2d 1018 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1976

Moore, White, and Klapmeier, all of whom were previously found to be well qualified to express opinions on this question. Mr. … Moreover, the record in this case establishes that it is not physically possible to remove the vessels over land intact.

Kingsley v. United States

172 Ct. Cl. 549 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1965

Those conclusions were reversed on December 16, 1942, by a Medical Appeal Board which found him physically qualified for active military duty. … I will have to answer that no, and qualify it.

Sol O. Schlesinger, D.B.A. Ideal Uniform Cap Company v. The United States

383 F.2d 1004 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 13, 1967

No authority is offered in support of this proposition, and clearly our order does not substantiate it. … Contracts QM 1761 and TAP-1933 permitted the 5-percent discount if payment were made within 20 days; contract QM 13919 required payment within 15 days to qualify for the discount. 5 .

Brownfield v. United States

148 Ct. Cl. 411 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1960

Clearly, Air Force Regulation 36-2 can be deemed invalid only if it contravenes the statute which authorizes the action which it regulates. … We think those other pertinent factors are clearly apparent in the record before us.

Mine Safety Appliances Company and United Tanks, Inc. v. The United States

364 F.2d 385 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1966

The Government’s patent rights under the Navy contract were established by Section 17 of that document: (a) Where used in this Section, and not elsewhere in this contract, the expression “Subject Invention” means each invention … In other respects U.S.C. explicitly recognized that projects carried on under the umbrella of the OSRD contract were extended under the Navy program; and the Navy clearly considered its contract to be a prolongation of the

J. F. Hodgkins Company (1), Kingman Marine Construction, Inc. (2), and Palmer & Parker Co. (3) v. The United States

318 F.2d 932 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 21, 1963

The purchase orders issued by Rice to cover these transactions clearly indicated that the items ordered therein were to be used for the execution of contract NObs-3572. … True, it is established by law, but it is affixed to, and cannot exist without a contract.” [Fuller v. Nickerson, 69 Me. 228, 236 (1879).] 2 .