Case law

Missouri Health & Medical Organization, Inc. v. United States

641 F.2d 870 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 28, 1981

Persons having income below specified máxi-mums qualified for membership under MHMO’s group III plan for the medically indigent. … The central provision which establishes our jurisdiction is that part of the Tucker Act now codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1491 : The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States

Murray v. United States

15 Cl. Ct. 17 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 2, 1988

Defendant establishes standing in this case by statute, see Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 259-60 , 55 S.Ct. 695, 699 , 79 L.Ed. 1421 (1935), and need not establish that it suffered an injury in fact. 2. … Since the IRS had the statutory right to determine the persons who qualify to redeem, the issue becomes whether plaintiffs held a valid lien. State law controls legal interests in real property. See United States v.

Nabisco, Inc. v. United States

599 F.2d 415 · United States Court of Claims · May 16, 1979

Under this interpretation, flour is clearly a "food product processed from wheat,” since it is simply the result of grinding wheat. … Such a removal terminates the processing chain and establishes certificate liability.

Rio Hondo Memorial Hospital v. United States

689 F.2d 1025 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 22, 1982

Associates qualifies as an "organization related to the provider by common ownership” by virtue of owning 100 percent of Hospital’s stock and facilities. … The transaction in question occurred prior to July 1, 1966, and falls clearly within the express exception.

KDH Corp. v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,087 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 30, 1991

Conceding that a joint venture is most like a partnership, defendant argues that a joint venture is not immune from federal contract law. … clearly did not have the authority to do so on behalf of the joint venture.

Charles B. Wrightsman and Jayne Wrightsman v. The United States

428 F.2d 1316 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1970

Plaintiffs assert that the facts and circumstances in evidence, with which they say their personal declarations of purpose and intent are in complete accord, clearly establish the deductibility of the incurred expenses as … Clearly, we think, by the nature of the issue it must.

Cockrill v. United States

161 Ct. Cl. 752 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1963

Establishment. — a. … Legal status. — Clubs governed by these regulations are integral parts of the Military Establishment, are wholly owned Government instrumentalities, and are entitled to the immunities and privileges of such in-strumentalities

Paskert v. United States

20 Cl. Ct. 65 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 28, 1990

As indicated in para 9-7, AR 623-105, the burden of proof rests with the appellant to provide relevant material to clearly and convincingly establish that a contested OER is not an accurate assessment of his performance. … the criteria established in the policy directive for waiver of the ITC requirement.

United States Court of Claims

411 F.2d 1255 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1969

Thus according to the Bureau of Ethnology, Eskimos and Aleuts would qualify as "Indians." But there are canons of statutory construction other than the "plain meaning" approach to which we can look. … The Department's position is even more clearly stated in an opinion of the Solicitor of the Interior Department dated June 5, 1940, and quoted with approval in the Handbook at p. 406: 24 In considering the application to

Ulmet v. United States

17 Cl. Ct. 679 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 25, 1989

Although it is an established principle that Congress controls the plaintiff’s right to military pay, see Norman v. … Therefore, even if this court was inclined to utilize the unamended statute and to insist that when qualifying for a privilege such as retirement benefits that the statutory requirements be clearly met by a potential beneficiary

Patten v. United States

161 Ct. Cl. 131 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 6, 1963

that the Board may deny an application where a sufficient basis for review has not been established. … The VA award of compensation obviously has no relation to fitness for service although the various conditions concerned are ratable under the VA Schedule and clearly service connected. *158 4.

King Enterprises, Inc. v. The United States

418 F.2d 511 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 14, 1969

The “end result” test, on the other hand, establishes a standard whereby: * * * purportedly separate transactions will be amalgamated into a single transaction when it appears that they were really component parts of a single … Its interpretation should be so limited. 6 Clearly, the step transaction doctrine would be a dead letter if restricted to situations where the parties were bound to take certain steps.

Huffaker v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 662 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 9, 1983

Since basic pay is not received after discharge or release, the member must qualify for the benefits provided before being discharged or released from active duty. … It has long been established that the cause of action in a disability pay ease arises when a proper board has acted or declined to act in a particular case. Friedman v.

Iowa Tribe of Indians v. United States

68 Ct. Cl. 585 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1929

Contracts, treaties, and agreements as the result of such negotiations have been repeatedly before the courts, and without exception the actual agreement as understood by the Indians has been enforced when it is clearly established … The standard of intelligence among the Iowas makes it exceedingly difficult to make them understand that they have but a limited and qualified interest.

Richards v. United States

20 Cl. Ct. 753 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 9, 1990

In that connection, it is wejl established by court decisions that if and when the Federal Government takes private property for public use, it is the owner — and only the owner — of such property, at the time of the taking … Even assuming, but by no means acknowledging, that plaintiffs allegations were found to be true, such claims sound in tort and as such also are clearly outside the jurisdiction of the United States Claims Court. 28 U.S.C.

Salem Engineering & Construction Corp. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,312 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 7, 1983

Defendant argues that these provisions clearly require Salem to remove and replace the entire existing roof. … The scope of work for other items referred to in the demolition section includes qualifying phrases such- as “all” or indicates the *807 number or locations of items to be removed. * No similar qualifying phrases are used

Allsbrook v. United States

1 Cl. Ct. 194 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 8, 1982

In light of these restrictions, the medical officer deemed plaintiff not qualified to perform the full duties of his payroll title; an “altered fitness work assignment” was recommended. … The record does not establish the date or dates of the alleged theft other than in broad fashion, i.e., “prior to 30 March 1978”. .

Quailes v. United States

25 Cl. Ct. 659 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1992

Moreover, this presumption may only be rebutted by established medical principles, which plaintiff claimed have not been met. … United States, 25 Cl.Ct. 289 (1992), wherein the court held that the Secretary of the Air Force properly separated a member for misconduct although he may have been qualified for disability retirement.

Rowe v. United States

4 Cl. Ct. 39 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 30, 1983

At the same time, however, the Secretary did not then reject any of the earlier-qualified lease offers — this in response to the “intense interest” expressed by these offerors in maintaining their first-qualified status in … The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act established twelve Native Regional Corporations, of which the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation was one. The Act also established smaller village corporations.

Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. States

413 F.2d 568 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1969

But there was no indication, explicit or implicit, of the immunity of subsidy decisions to judical review. That subject was not broached. … Those qualifying terms are wholly antithetic to any absolute discretion in the administrators to set their own process. C.