Case law

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.

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.”

Richmond Hosiery Mills v. The United States

305 F.2d 840 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 18, 1962

The Supreme Court explained more fully its definition of accruability as established in United States v. … Clearly there was a contest as to the assessed deficiency. We are of the opinion that this controversy extended to the whole of the assessment for which liability was not recognized or admitted.

Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,547 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 31, 1988

Section 2433.11 also specified that to qualify for an extension the contractor must have harvested at least fifty percent of the timber and constructed necessary roads to reach at least sixty percent of the remaining timber … Additional evidence introduced at trial established that extensions for pre-July 1971 contracts clearly were not automatic.

Ritchey Flying Service, Inc. v. United States

145 F. Supp. 752 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 7, 1956

Any communication from or action by a claimant or his duly authorized representative which clearly indicates an intent to apply for benefits under this title may be considered an informal application thereunder if promptly … established.

Suwannee River Finance, Inc. v. United States

7 Cl. Ct. 556 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 26, 1985

This language clearly allows for the possibility that the Board might deny such participation in some cases. … Essential changes, once so qualified, are entitled to subsidy. No essential changes are in issue here. .

Viereck v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 745 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1983

The cash and other liquid assets transferred by VFI to plaintiff should just as clearly be regarded as part of the non-operating assets. … , particularly whereas here the evidence clearly shows, in substance and effect, that a § 368(a)(1)(D) reorganization did in fact occur.

Genobia Aragon de Jaramillo v. United States

37 Ct. Cl. 208 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 17, 1902

The case of Reed appears to have been one of bailment as to some of the chattels, and it was claimed that Reed had advanced the money to pay for the stock taken while in his possession, and that by reason of his qualified … The authorities clearly settle the transaction which put the claimant in possession of the property (subsequently taken by the Indians) as a sale and not merely a bailment, unless the agreement between the original owner

Vogel Fertilizer Co. v. United States

634 F.2d 497 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 13, 1980

Plaintiff, however, argues that the regulation is unreasonable and clearly inconsistent with the statute. … Defendant misunderstands the function of this doctrine, which, for example, would establish (in the absence of clarifying indentation) that the qualifying clause "taking into account the stock ownership of each such person

Hayes Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States

163 Ct. Cl. 265 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 15, 1963

Similarly, in the present case, defendant’s representatives were “best qualified to describe the characteristics” of the jato. … The expert testimony and documentary exhibits in this case clearly establish that, from a scientific and engineering standpoint, jatos are rocket motors designed for specialized uses.

Blount Brothers Construction Company v. The United States

346 F.2d 962 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 11, 1965

The theoretical rock line thus plotted by the Government was shown in contract drawings to lie above the 108' elevation established for the bottom of the basin for roughly half of its length, and below it for the remainder … It is true that unlike the first two sentences of specification 2-03(e), the third sentence lacks such qualifying words as “as shown”, “as indicated”, “as detailed”, or words of similar import to clearly import the accompanying

Laningham v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 535 · United States Court of Claims · May 31, 1983

However, when it only becomes manifest after release from duty, its connection to the “line of duty” is not always so clearly evident. … On the other hand, plaintiff has clearly and convincingly carried his burden in establishing that the BCNR’s decision denying his application of October 15,1980, for the restoration of his disability pay and allowances under

St. Elizabeth Hospital v. United States

558 F.2d 8 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 15, 1977

Elizabeth is a qualified provider of services under the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(e)(l-8)(1970), and has engaged in providing such services from 1966. … This eight-year shortening of the time in which to change election clearly had substantive impact on plaintiff in this case. Publication in the Federal Register, therefore, was required. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(1)(D).

Johnson v. United States

618 F.2d 751 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 19, 1980

It did so by application of a clearly erroneous legal theory, as will appear. … That provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence clearly applied to the proceedings before the Board in this cause.

Andrew v. Allison v. The United States

301 F.2d 670 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 6, 1962

Plaintiff’» orders included temporary active duty for qualifying physical examination, and, upon a finding that he was physically qualified, a period of temporary active duty under instruction at the Naval School of Justice … This clearly was not the intent of Congress when it passed the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952, supra.

No. 339-65

388 F.2d 998 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 14, 1967

Supreme Court in the Metlakatla case as quoted above, "This statute [Public Law 280] expressly protects against state invasion all uses of Indian property authorized by federal treaty, agreement, statute, or regulation, * *," clearly … recognizes and establishes the right of the Menominees to hunt and fish and trap on their reservation free from interference by the game laws of the State of Wisconsin.

Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. v. United States

687 F.2d 422 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 8, 1982

Part A is designed to provide basic protection against the cost of hospital and post-hospital services for qualifying individuals age 65 and over by providing for government payment (after a deductible) of the "reasonable … These regulations do clearly establish that a return on equity capital is only allowed on that portion of equity capital related to patient care.

McGucken v. United States

197 Ct. Cl. 965 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1972

The converse would of course follow — if such camiot be established the plaintiff is not so entitled and the case should be dismissed. 7. The plaintiff has been given full opportunity to present his proofs. … A non-attorney would neither be qualified nor permitted to occupy the position of attorney-advisor (real property) with the Corps of Engineers. 21.

McCloskey ex rel. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States

66 Ct. Cl. 105 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 18, 1928

The evidence on this point is quite voluminous, but the preponderance is clearly in favor of the plaintiff. … It is urged on behalf of defendant that parol evidence to establish a contract or understanding with reference to time when the site was to be cleared is inadmissible.

Slotnick v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 784 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 30, 1985

Cleland, 590 F.2d 627 (6th Cir.1978), the result has uniformly been established that § 211(a) expressly restricts the jurisdiction of the federal courts by precluding review of VA benefit determinations. … Under either accrual method, therefore, the six-year statute had clearly run.