Case law

Sharkey v. United States

17 Cl. Ct. 643 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 19, 1989

To state a claim under the takings clause, plaintiffs must establish that they owned property which the United States took for a public purpose. … The United States is immune from suit except to the extent it waives that immunity. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814 , 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1976 , 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976).

Mike Mizokami, Sam Mizokami, Tom Mizokami, and Hatsuyo Mizokami v. The United States

414 F.2d 1375 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1969

It is clear that Priv.L.No. 88-346, supra, constitutes a waiver of the sovereign immunity which defendant could otherwise claim in this case. … This claim is clearly barred by Sec. 2680(h) of the [Tort Claims] Act. * * * We think the first cause of action, for negligence, is also barred.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States

553 F. Supp. 1052 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 18, 1982

It is now well established that generally four conditions must be met before a preliminary injunction is granted. … Indeed, the statutory language and legislative history clearly bear out the fact that Congress anticipated enjoining liquidation to be the rare exception established only by concrete proof rather than an automatic response

Cooper v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 9, 2015

"The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued." United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The waiver of immunity "cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed." … Plaintiff has not established that he has filed any valid claims for refund with the IRS.

Fife v. Commissioner

82 T.C. 1 · United States Tax Court · Jan 4, 1984

Accordingly, in enacting section 48(k)(l)(A)(i) it was clearly Congress’s intention that, with respect to motion picture property placed in service prior to 1975, only new property should qualify for the investment tax credit … The regulations promulgated under section 48(k) are particularly helpful in establishing what constitutes new property for purposes of that section.

General Electric Co. v. United States

83 Cust. Ct. 56 · United States Customs Court · Sep 11, 1979

Bruckmann was concerned with a provision for parts, and the linchpin of the decision was the well-established rule that an eo nomine provision does not include parts unless expressly so mentioned. … Clearly, that rule has no application in the present case. I know of no general rule that eo nomine provisions are not subject to the qualification of a “whether or not” phrase.

C-Y-Z

21 I. & N. Dec. 915 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1997

Similarly, the appli- cant does not qualify under the third clause. … The threat of a future arrest if the applicant resists birth control measures in the future has clearly been rendered moot if his wife was sterilized in 1991 as he claims.

Johnson v. Commissioner

74 T.C. 1057 · United States Tax Court · Aug 12, 1980

On December 22, 1975, Johnson established the IRA and made a $1,500 contribution to it that remained therein until 1977. … During the first 2y2 months of 1975 and the last 9 months of 1976, Johnson was an active participant in a qualified retirement plan.

McDonald v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 7, 2023

MacGinnitie had a “cookie cutter” view of immune activation or noting that Dr. … Wallace is eminently qualified to opine on toxicology matters. Id. at 21–22. The other two Althen prongs are also unmet, Respondent contends.

Texaco Inc. v. Commissioner

101 T.C. 571 · United States Tax Court · Dec 15, 1993

Where the statute is ambiguous, it is well established that we may look to its legislative history and to the reason for its enactment. United States v. … A “barrel-of-oil equivalent” of qualified fuel generally meant the amount of qualified fuel having a Btu content of 5.8 million.

Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 15, 2016

To establish entitlement to compensation under the Program, Petitioner must establish each of the three prongs of Althen by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … Cetaruk, “autoimmune diseases stem from a hyperactive and deranged immune system activity. Adjuvants are stimulators of hyperactive immune responses (whether it be Th1 or Th2).

Taylor v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 423 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 18, 2002

Where the Court’s jurisdiction is challenged, the nonmoving party “bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Reynolds v. … Waivers of sovereign immunity must be explicit and cannot be implied. United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969).

Double Lion Uchet Express Trust v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2020

-2- Id. at 40; see also id. at 51-52 (asserting that “[i]n the context of International law the Washitaw has established itself as a sovereign independent nation”), 55 … “The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941).

Coast-To-Coast Financial Corp. v. United States

45 Fed. Cl. 796 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 19, 2000

To the contrary, it is reasonable to presume (unless the opposite clearly appears) that the sovereign does not promise that none of its multifarious sovereign acts, needful for the public good, will incidentally disable it … First Heights has thus established a sufficient connection between the documents it seeks and the legislative history of the Guarini bill.

Halperin Shipping Co., Inc. v. United States

742 F. Supp. 1163 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 2, 1990

the Walker letter constituted a protestable “charge or exaction” for purposes of establishing jurisdiction in this Court. … Considerations of sovereign immunity mandate that the United States only be subject to suit when the statutorily defined terms of its consent have been duly met. United States v.

MENDOZA-SANDINO

22 I. & N. Dec. 1236 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2000

Matter of Perez, 22 I&N Dec. 3389 (BIA 1999) (finding that under section 240A(d)(1) physical presence ends upon the commission of a qualifying criminal offense). … That is clearly incorrect.

City of Cincinnati v. United States

39 Fed. Cl. 271 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 28, 1997

Stormwater costs shall be spread throughout the city, except where activities or facilities are clearly unusual and in excess of the normal level of service city-wide. … This view, we believe, comports with the principal purpose of the immunity doctrine, that of forestalling ‘clashing sovereignty,’ McCulloch v.

Golden Nugget, Inc. v. Commissioner

83 T.C. 28 · United States Tax Court · Jul 18, 1984

Such a reorganization clearly does not involve a sale or other similar transfer of capital assets. … Rul. 77-415, respondent’s established position was that debt-for-equity exchanges such as the 1974 exchange failed to qualify as statutory reorganizations because continuity of interest was lacking.

Callander v. Commissioner

75 T.C. 334 · United States Tax Court · Dec 4, 1980

Petitioner admitted at trial that the checking account was not specifically established for the purpose of maintaining tax records. … Clearly, petitioner is not entitled to deduct the entire cost of maintaining her checking account.

WANG

25 I. & N. Dec. 28 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2009

Who May Qualify as a “Child”? … Unlike sections 203(h)(1) and (2), which when read in tandem clearly define the universe of petitions that qualify for the “delayed processing formula,” the language of section 203(h)(3) does not expressly state which petitions