Case law

Hopkins v. United States

167 Ct. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 17, 1964

Davis, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: In 1957, plaintiff, a selective service registrant, was found medically qualified for general service in the Army. … Examinee is not qualified for military service. 7.

Warren G. Schaller v. United States

288 F.2d 700 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 7, 1961

The Renegotiation Act, supra, clearly shows that plaintiff was employed subject to the Classification Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 954 , 972. … Thus the situation is this: Plaintiff must have been qualified for conversion to civil service status. Otherwise, Mr.

Biddle v. United States

186 Ct. Cl. 87 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 13, 1968

The review and a determination therefrom is the prerogative of the board based on qualified information in official records. [Emphasis supplied.] * * % * 6. … The regulations established no rules to guide the ADB in entertaining requests for reconsideration.

Heli-Jet Corp. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,233 · United States Court of Claims · May 31, 1983

Such relief as is sought here should be granted only in infrequent and limited circumstances where such relief is clearly appropriate. … This was clearly the reason for the request for such information, and the court so holds.

James D. Stephens v. The United States

358 F.2d 951 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1966

court has held on many occasions that it has no power to review the decisions of the Secretary of one of the military departments or his authorized representatives in such a case unless the petitioner shows by cogent and clearly … We are unable to agree with plaintiff’s contention that the recited facts establish that the Army acted arbitrarily in his case.

Thanet Corp. v. United States

591 F.2d 629 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 24, 1979

These revisions were intended to make it clear that the Government did not agree to waive any immunity it might enjoy from state or local regulations. … Thanet clearly recognized the necessity of obtaining any legally necessary zoning variances for construction of a post office on the proposed site.

Tannehill v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 296 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 3, 1989

This includes filling established manpower vacancies. The regulation also clearly states that all other factors (including, among others, time-on-station) are secondary.” … Disagreeing with plaintiffs interpretation, the Board concluded that plaintiff was chosen for the assignment as the “best qualified to meet the needs of the service.”

Acker v. United States

6 Cl. Ct. 503 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 30, 1984

The Senate Report explicitly states that the bill was designed to establish uniformity of benefits to overseas employees regardless of agency. S.Rep. … Yet that Act’s legislative history clearly shows an intent to provide teachers living quarters allowance and post differential on the same basis as other employees, supra.

Huber ex rel. Huber v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

22 Cl. Ct. 255 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 8, 1991

I find that this is reasonable and order that the award be paid out with the understanding that such fund will be established in lieu of an annuity. … “One portion of a statute should not be construed to *260 annul or destroy what has been clearly granted by another.” Peck v. Jenness, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 320 , 325, 12 L.Ed. 841 (1848).

Ball v. United States

1 Cl. Ct. 180 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 12, 1982

Under that doctrine, a landowner who obstructs or diverts percolating waters on his own land, even to the detriment of his neighbor, is immune from liability therefor if the interference was “in the lawful and reasonable … Moreover, for the purpose of ruling upon defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the disputed facts are clearly material. .

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States

670 F.2d 156 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 27, 1982

The United States therefore had sufficient rights to acquire and use missiles reading on the ’883 patent so long as that invention qualifies as a "Subject Invention” under the contract. II. … At most, therefore, the exceptions reduce the rights granted the United States to a royalty-free license — which would be enough to immunize defendant for using and purchasing the accused articles here.

Union Electric Company of Missouri v. The United States

305 F.2d 850 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 18, 1962

Section 141 (b) directs the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations as he deems necessary to determine, compute, and collect the tax liability of any affiliated *854 group of corporations to clearly reflect the … Even accepting the-applicability of § 24.11(c) and (d), we-would not conclude that these subparagraphs establish plaintiff’s position.. *855 Section 24.11(c) sets forth two criteria, both of which must be present to insure

Stone v. United States

160 Ct. Cl. 128 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1963

(a) The plaintiff participated in the Reserve program (first, of the Army Air Corps and, later, of the Air Force after its establishment) from 1946 until 1954. … The plaintiff was found to be physically qualified for extended active duty.

Martin Merson v. The United States

401 F.2d 184 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1968

This conclusion was again reached on January 1, 1946, in reporting plaintiff physically qualified for temporary promotion to Commander, and the next day a Board of Medical Examiners found plaintiff physically qualified for … In Walters, supra, 358 F.2d p. 963, 175 Ct.Cl. 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

Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. United States

98 F. Supp. 757 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 9, 1951

The record indicates clearly that the contracting officer was aware that a profit was to be realized. … The court held first that the officer approving the lease was clearly the contracting officer within the meaning of the contract.

Shaposka v. United States

563 F.2d 1013 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 19, 1977

One barrier to their employment may be inability to be selected competitively even though they have been trained and are qualified to perform the job tasks. … On October 18,1972, plaintiff asked the agency personnel office if it would be possible to make arrangements for him' to qualify for health insurance.

Ernest L. Wilkinson and Alice L. Wilkinson v. The United States

304 F.2d 469 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 6, 1962

. * * * ” Clearly, taxpayer is permitted a deduction of 15 percent of his “adjusted gross income.’’ … Inasmuch as section 23(o) requires that plaintiff’s 1951 charitable deduction be limited to 15 percent of his 1951 adjusted gross income, for the Government to prevail it must establish that the effect of applying section

Adelson v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 591 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 14, 1983

each of the various business entities were in fact *593 loans and not contributions to capital, that a legitimate business purpose was the “dominant motivation” 5 underlying the making of each loan, and that they therefore qualified … Therefore, there may now be no necessity for a remand to the Secretary. * * * * * * Having accepted this proposition, the Court should conclude that the Secretary, clearly and convincingly, was arbitrary and unreasonable

Grover M. v. United States

9 Cl. Ct. 741 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 8, 1986

Moreover, it is settled in this court that Congress’s waiver of sovereign immunity in § 1491(a)(3) is to be strictly construed and may not be expanded by implication. … The document submitted to FmHA by plaintiffs to establish their eligibility was styled “Financial Statement As of Date of Application.”

Ernest Paroczay v. The United States

369 F.2d 720 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 16, 1966

The fact of constructive reinstatement, of course, does not of itself establish that plaintiff was covered for the period of wrongful separation as a matter of law. … The case is clearly in-apposite to the case at bar, because plaintiff here did in fact earn something from a “lower level” job.