Case law

DeRoche v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,362 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 18, 1983

Any waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to suit must be clearly expressed and strictly construed. United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1502 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969); United States v. … HUD’s disbursal and oversight of grant funds to BIHA were clearly “sovereign acts of the Government and were not directed solely to the [plaintiffs] but affected the general public and were done for the common good and the

Board of County Com'rs of Sedgwick County v. United States

105 F. Supp. 995 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1952

Thus it is well established in the Kansas courts that such exemptions must be strictly construed, Clements v. Ljungdahl, 161 Kan. 274 , 167 P.2d 603 ; Palmer v. … State Commission of Revenue and Taxation, 156 Kan. 690 , 135 P.2d 899 ; and it has been said that the claimant of the tax exemption “must establish beyond a reasonable doubt his right thereto.”

Glen P. Gradall v. The United States

329 F.2d 960 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1963

They are integral parts of the War Department, share in fulfilling the duties entrusted to it, and partake of whatever immunities it may have under the constitution and federal statutes. * * *” It is evident that Congress … From section 201 through 216 of the Act, the purpose of the Congress to curtail expenditures from appropriated funds in Government employment is clearly apparent.

Head v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services

26 Cl. Ct. 546 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 23, 1992

The special master concluded: “Clearly, the statute bars this petition on both jurisdictional and evidentiary grounds. … . § 300aa-33(2), the term "legal representative" means "a parent or an individual who qualifies as a legal guardian under state law.” Thus, either parent apparently would qualify as a “legal representative.” .

Franklin Life Insurance v. United States

37 F. Supp. 155 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 3, 1941

Still further it is said (p. 421): “When immunity is claimed from a tax laid on private persons, it must clearly appear that the burden upon the state function is actual and substantial, not conjectural.” … that it seeks to have established.

Montana Bank of Circle, N.A. v. United States

7 Cl. Ct. 601 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 14, 1985

That it is necessary in qualifying for the loan from the First National Bank for building and operating expenses connected with the Fort Belknap Builders. 2. … was required to be construed under the strict standards appropriate to waivers of sovereign immunity.

Zervas v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 1425 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 21, 1992

The United States, as the sovereign, is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued by waiving its sovereign immunity. United States v. … Each section defines specific qualifying criteria and then states that federal employees who satisfy these criteria are “entitled” to be placed in a position at a certain level of pay or to receive a certain amount of pay

Harris v. United States

4 Cl. Ct. 418 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1984

Despite the well established doctrine of strict construction of the sovereign’s waiver of immunity, plaintiff contends that a preliminary injunction can be granted as “an incident of and collateral to” his requested money … Moreover, the statutory language, which has been part of section 1491 since 1972, 2 clearly contemplates the entry of a money judgment in plaintiff’s favor before the Court can grant the corrective relief authorized.

Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. United States

34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,416 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1987

To the same extent that a contractor, federal government employee, soldier, patent holder, or taxpayer depends upon the waiver of sovereign immunity for the right to seek redress, the government relies upon the established … The interest of the Congress in resolving some matters that are not cases or controversies, but like them, and closely related to the waiver of sovereign immunity, in a judicial forum is another legitimate reason for establishing

Martinez v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 1471 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 28, 1992

. *1473 On March 27, 1986, Martinez filed a Request for Exception/Waiver stating that he was medically qualified for commissioning according to applicable regulations. On May 27, 1986, the U.S. … Martinez is clearly seeking equitable relief that this court has no power to grant. See Froudi v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 290, 294-97 (1991).

Borden v. United States

116 F. Supp. 873 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 1, 1953

Clearly under the decision in Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, supra, he may not sue the Exchange Service, because consent has not been granted. May he sue the defendant? … They are not Government contracts and the distinction between exchange contracts and Government contracts will be observed and clearly indicated at all times.”

Metropolitan Bldg. Co. v. United States

12 F. Supp. 537 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 4, 1935

The principle of immunity from taxation by the federal government of instrumentalities of a state and the corresponding immunity of federal instrumentalities from taxation by a state is well settled. … The facts are clearly and fundamentally distinguishable. In both the Gillespie and the Coronado Cases the taxed income came from profits realized on the sale of oil abstracted from the lands leased.

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

24 Cl. Ct. 440 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 31, 1991

Thoman, pertaining to the onset of the encephalopathy within the three-day period after the third immunization. … Bodinsteiner [sic], a well-qualified pediatric neurologist, to be much more persuasive on this issue.”

Mitchell v. United States

664 F.2d 265 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 21, 1981

The concept has been phrased in different ways, but the Supreme Court has firmly established that, for a suit against the United States, there must be a waiver of sovereign immunity shown by "clear congressional consent.” … These are not clearly included in the legislation plaintiffs invoke; the statutes concern property and its rightful proceeds.

Ridenour v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 128 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 26, 1983

For example, Treas.Reg. 1.401-10(b)(4) provides: For the purpose of determining whether an employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1) satisfies the requirements for eligibility under a qualified plan established by … In order for a plan to qualify for favorable tax treatment, an employer must establish it with the intent to maintain it permanently. Treas.Reg. 1.401-l(b)(2).

Giaimo

618 F.2d 125 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 14, 1979

In fact, none of the alleged facts even establish that INS was aware of plaintiffs expectations in that regard. … In order to qualify for this protection, the employees are required to follow certain procedures, including notification. Id. Plaintiff failed to *534 follow these procedures.

Corporate Air v. United States

26 Cl. Ct. 204 · United States Court of Claims · May 12, 1992

Statutory waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed and are to be strictly construed in favor of the government. See Office of Personnel Management v. … This reading is supported by § 609(a)(3), which establishes the statute of limitations as “twelve months from the date of the receipt by the contractor of the decision of the contracting officer concerning the claim.”

Baird v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 324 · United States Court of Claims · May 14, 1984

Several well-established principles are important to this decision. … Similarly, the governmental action in the present case is clearly distinct from that contemplated by the Reclamation Act.

Baird Corp. v. United States

30 Cont. Cas. Fed. 70,703 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 14, 1983

Plaintiff has failed to establish that SIC No. 3662 was improperly assigned to IFB— E004. B. … It must be concluded here that plaintiff does not qualify as a planned producer for the item in question, Night Driver Viewer AN-VVS-2, 5855-01-096-0871, because it did not clearly identify said item in Form 1519 by its Federal

Haberman v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 302 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1989

It is well established, however, that the government cannot be sued on contract obligations implied-in-Iaw. United States v. … Likewise, the court in Bounds clearly stated: “Plaintiffs’ fifth amendment claim is ... without merit.