Case law

Adams v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 602 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 13, 2001

Furthermore, although generally a movant must show new evidence, supervening law, or a clearly erroneous decision in order to obtain reconsideration, this is not a limit on the court’s ability to review its own decisions. … Individuals who qualify for AUO hours are not paid on an hourly basis for their overtime hours, but receive a percentage of their basic pay rate as compensation. Id.

Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · May 20, 2019

The Counsel to the President clearly qualifies as a senior adviser entitled to testimonial immunity. … Plainly, the Counsel to the President qualifies as an immediate adviser to the President.

Perez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 29, 2015

To establish entitlement to compensation under the Program, Petitioner is required to establish each of the three prongs of Althen by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … This was clearly Dr.

Insurance Co. of the West v. United States

100 Fed. Cl. 58 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2011

In essence, these Acts withdraw the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. See Ins. Co. of the W., 243 F.3d at 1375 . … On the other hand, the general rule in law is that when something must be clearly shown then mere inference will not suffice.

Payment of Back Wages to Alien Physicians Hired Under the H-1B Visa Program

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Feb 11, 2008

The principles governing sovereign immunity are well-established. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v. … In this regard, we take it as a given that the fact that a VA hospital may qualify as an employer under the H-1B visa program does not conclusively establish that Congress waived sovereign immunity.

Delozier v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 19, 2021

While it may have been established in this case that the HBV vaccine could trigger one instance of AA, it has not been similarly shown that any trigger (vaccine or not) would so alter a person’s immune … An abuse of discretion occurs when a special master’s decision is: “(1) … clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) … based on an erroneous conclusion of the law; (3) … clearly erroneous; or (4) the record contains

Smith v. Gober

14 Vet. App. 227 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 22, 2000

Even assuming arguendo that the Secretary has the authority, he clearly has not delegated such authority. … It is well established that this Court is a court of law, and not of equity, and we cannot provide equitable relief. Taylor v. West, 11 Vet.App. 436, 440 (1998).

Manor Care, Inc. v. United States

89 Fed. Cl. 618 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2009

Clearly, in these cases, the credit was not serving as *626 an incentive for the hiring of target group members. … The plaintiff was permitted proceed to trial and attempt to establish how many, if any, employees would have been certified had their requests been reviewed.

Hue Thi Nguyen v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 550 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 1, 2003

Even if Plaintiffs Qualified Under the Tolling Provisions of § 2501, Their Complaint is Still Untimely. … The Court in Goewey noted that “hardship” and “inconvenience” did not qualify as grounds for tolling the statute. Id. at 544 .

CONTOPOULOS

10 I. & N. Dec. 654 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1964

Louis Levine, Director, to show that qualified work- ers as described in this Form ES 560 are not available within the - 654 … The approval of such a petition shall not, of Itself, be construed as establishing that the alien is a nonimmigrant.

LOYD v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 27, 2026

The record clearly established the CBC panel ordered at Ms. Loyd’s request revealed a normal platelet level of 340,000. Dr. … He clearly did not miss the import of that testimony and it was taken into consideration. We note, once again, the injury involved there was not ITP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 37 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 27, 2006

Although the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity and establishes jurisdiction in this court, courts have recognized that the Act does not by itself create substantive rights. See Folden, 379 F.3d at 1354 . … The Supreme Court in Blue Fox stated clearly that none of those eases “involved a question of sovereign immunity.”

Beall v. Commissioner

39 B.T.A. 168 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 24, 1939

Beall, during the taxable year in question, were two of three duly appointed, qualified, and acting Commissioners of the Industrial Commission of Ohio, a part of the executive department of the state government, with offices … Kearns, during the taxable year in question, was the duly appointed, qualified, and acting superintendent of safety and hygiene for the Industrial Commission.

Curtis v. Commissioner

39 B.T.A. 366 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 9, 1939

During the years 1932 to 1935, inclusive, the petitioner was a duly qualified and acting notary public in and for the Counties of Nassau and New York, State of New York. … S. 216 . ❖ # ❖ * * * * * * * When immunity is claimed from a tax laid on private persons, it must clearly appear that the burden upon the state function is actual and substantial, not conjectural. Willcuts v.

Koehn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 19, 2013

McCabe is qualified to testify about causation even though he would not be qualified to testify about treatment. Petitioner also opines that, while Dr. … McCabe was uniquely qualified to testify about the causal connection between Gardasil and SJIA based on his research as an immunologist, Dr.

Day v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 7, 2015

He testified, “Clearly, there are genes that are predisposing her family to autoimmunity, [so] that their immune system is more likely to attack self-antigens” than someone else’s immune system. Tr. 130. … Leist, one of the Group’s individual participants worked in the CDC’s immunization office, and each of the Group’s members is a well-qualified pediatric and public health specialist.

SANDOZ CROP PROTECTION CORPORATION

19 I. & N. Dec. 666 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1988

This knowledge and expertise must be clearly different from those held by others employed in the same or similar occupations. … The director denied the petition on the ground that the petition- er had failed to establish the beneficiary qualifies for "L-1" classifi- cation as a person who has been and would continue working in a capacity involving

Bowen v. United States

49 Fed. Cl. 673 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2001

The limited jurisdiction of this Court serves as a waiver of the sovereign immunity that the United States government otherwise enjoys. 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (2001). … Thus, his service does not qualify for the tolling provisions of the SSCRA.

Addison International, Inc. v. Commissioner

90 T.C. 1207 · United States Tax Court · Jun 21, 1988

Because the handbook clearly promised that adverse treatment would not be retroactively applied, petitioner maintains that its rebanee on the handbook immunizes it from retroactive appbeation. … Memo. 1983-56 , 45 T.C.M. 607 , 52 P-H Memo T.C. par 83,056 (1983), we followed the precedent established prior to the recent disagreement among the circuits, citing to our opinion in CWT Farms, Inc. v.

Pure Power!, Inc. v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 739 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 10, 2006

A December 1,1998 letter from Greg Shank, a Mack Trucks employee, reads: “Clearly the Data confirm!] … It “confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Federal Claims over the specified categories of actions brought against the United States, and ... waives the Government’s sovereign immunity for those actions.” Fisher v.