Case law

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.

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.

Mariner v. United States

1 Cl. Ct. 430 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 28, 1983

The burden of establishing these elements is on the proponent (here the defendant) of the doctrine. Adkins v. United States, Ct.Cl. No. 420-80 (order entered September 29,1981). … Despite the clear showing by defendant of an inexcusable delay on plaintiff’s part, it is well settled that the defendant must also establish that it has been prejudiced thereby.

Ellis First National Bank of Bradenton v. United States

550 F.2d 9 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 23, 1977

This objective is clearly set forth in H. Rep. … The House version of the Act did not contain any exception for personal residences or farms; this proviso was added by the Senate, for reasons clearly expressed in its report, S. Rep.

TRW Environmental Safety Systems, Inc. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,712 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 24, 1989

Clearly then, these indisputable facts conclusively establish Mr. Rousso as a supervisory employee under § 7211(a)(1) and (3). The court finds, therefore, that Mr. … Collectively, the foregoing clearly establishes that SAIC’s interests in its existing contracts were jeopardized by the scope of the SEDM contract.

Egan v. United States

158 F. Supp. 377 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 15, 1958

It was later fully established that these witnesses lied. … If found physically qualified and if in opinion commanding officer appointee is mentally, morally, and professionally qualified and not involved disciplinary action, appointee will be informed of his appointment.

Folk Construction Co. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,247 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 14, 1983

Moreover, the agreement clearly contemplated that Cross would be entitled to any recovery from the Government. Thus, the release is not complete and unconditional. … The Court of Claims, in its order of September 19, 1980, held that the defendant had not met its burden of proving that the release, or some contract clause, completely immunized Folk from all liability to Cross. .

White Sands Ranchers v. United States

14 Cl. Ct. 559 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 30, 1988

Of course, to say that a statute reposes discretion in those charged with its administration does not mean that the exercise of that discretion is immune from a court’s power to review. … The standard of review is whether the action under challenge has a rational basis, i.e., is not so clearly wrong as to be arbitrary. Citizens To Preserve Overton Park, v.

Clara D. Blaschka v. The United States

393 F.2d 983 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1968

However, there must be clear evidence of an intention to liquidate if an informal plan is to be established. Oberndorfer, Partial Liquidations, N.Y.U. 13th Ann. Inst, on Fed. Tax. 637, 643 (1955). … Turning to the income figures in the instant case, they reflect clearly that the services performed for Max Mayer, Ltd., by C & C produced so little income as not to be a business separate and distinct from the United States

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States

21 Cl. Ct. 565 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1990

Other statutes can be characterized as only guardian in nature because they clearly contemplate an active decision-making role by the tribe or by individual Indians. … Likewise, Part 162 does not establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme that is as pervasive as the statutes covering mineral lands.

H. B. Zachry Company v. The United States

344 F.2d 352 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 16, 1965

The exemption has been qualified to the extent that the material-man must be selling supplies to the general public, the plant must not be established specially for the particular contract, and the plant is not located at … Such a result would be clearly contrary to the intention of Congress.

Canister Co. v. United States

70 F. Supp. 904 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1947

Garfein, who later changed his name to Gwathmey, was the president of the plaintiff and its sole stockholder, except for qualifying shares. … The entry on the journal, taken in connection with the bill of sale, clearly indicates *569 that they were. It reads, “stock issued for the business formerly owned by The Canister Co. of N.

Boraiko v. United States

146 Ct. Cl. 814 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1959

The regulations set out in finding 29 clearly stipulate that a person afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis shall be ineligible for even limited service. … In 1950 the plaintiff was examined to ascertain whether he was physically qualified for service in the Korean conflict.

Brooks v. United States

213 Ct. Cl. 115 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 23, 1977

It is not unusual for qualified officers to be passed over just because there are not enough promotion *118 slots to be filled by promotion of eligibles. … It noted that plaintiffs performance was "clearly outstanding.” The second OER covered the period January 2, 1974, through August 1, 1974 (hereinafter the August OER).

St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. United States

470 F.2d 523 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1972

'Since it is undisputed that the taxpayer’s EE&B property is of the “character subject to the allowance for depreciation under section 167,” the basis of such property is qualified for reduction under section 1017. … After a careful reading of the Senate Keport, we cannot agree with defendant’s contention that Congress clearly intended that the proposed regulation would apply only to ratably depreciable property.

Mulholland v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 252 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 30, 1989

FACTS The court finds the following operative facts to be undisputed and established by the parties. … However, the law in this area is not clearly developed.

Logicon, Inc. v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,066 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 25, 1991

In the “Source Selection Plan” utilized by NUSC’s evaluators, 11 A.l. of Part Five set the following guideline: “DEFICIENCY: An aspect of a proposal which fails to meet Government established minimum requirements as established … “A” — acceptable—no deficiencies; offeror fully qualified to perform (70-89 points) 3.

Grant Oil Tool Company v. The United States

381 F.2d 389 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 20, 1967

In addition, the basic condition of § 1231 for capital gains treatment is that the recognized gains on the qualifying dispositions of the property in question must exceed the recognized losses therefrom. … We think the definition of that term, as contained in § 1231(a), clearly covers this case.

Robert Rogers, Inc. v. United States

93 F. Supp. 1014 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 5, 1950

Stephens owned none, except one share to qualify him as a director. This was not a distribution of the profits of the business in the guise of salary. Nor was Robert R. … permanently immune from scrutiny regardless of how radically conditions may alter; and that is what petitioner's legal argument amounts to.

Mullen v. United States

17 Cl. Ct. 578 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 4, 1989

However, a board established under subsection (a) may excuse a failure to file within three years after discovery if it finds it to be in the interest of justice. … This court’s role in this case is to determine whether the Board’s decision is “clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful ...; based on an erroneous conclusion of law ...; clearly erroneous ...; or contains no evidence