Case law

Terhune v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 13, 2022

Whitton opines that petitioner’s disease severity “was clearly increasing prior to, or contemporaneous with, the vaccination.” (Ex. C, p. 4.) Like Dr. Deak, Dr. … The proposition that narcolepsy may be “an immune-mediated condition is fairly well-established” in the Program. McCollum v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14- 790V, 2017 WL 5386613, at *16 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.

Application of I. Lewis Cigar Mfg. Co

205 F.2d 204 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1953

Despite able presentation by counsel, however, Congressional intent was n'ot clearly established. … It seems to us that “Seidenberg” is clearly a surname which can have no other meaning or significance than that of a surname.

Ramm v. Commissioner

72 T.C. 671 · United States Tax Court · Jul 12, 1979

Petitioners’ first contention is clearly without merit. … It is well established that such regulations are given the force and effect of law unless they are unreasonable or plainly inconsistent with the statute, or unless they exceed the scope of the authority delegated. M. E.

Wally Packaging, Inc. v. United States

578 F. Supp. 1408 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 31, 1984

When the court’s jurisdiction is challenged, the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. McNutt v. … However, the Customs Service response of July 27, 1981 clearly denied any reliquidation under § 1520(c)(1).

Dinh v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 5, 2023

To be sure, defendant does not deny that plaintiffs have made such allegations: here, plaintiffs clearly allege a taking by federal legislation. Nor does defendant argue that plaintiffs’ allegations are frivolous. … Because PROMESA does not itself waive sovereign immunity, 9 a plaintiff suing the United States for monetary 9 There is no provision of PROMESA that may be read as an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity.

Rosa G. Canlas v. R. James Nicholson

21 Vet. App. 312 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 15, 2007

These findings by the service department as to qualifying service for VA benefits "are binding on VA for purposes of establishing service in the U.S. Armed Forces." Duro v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 530, 532 (1992). … Canlas had qualifying military service.

Hanson v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 512 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 16, 1991

Therefore, “all of the evidence ... establishes that the [Tourette’s syndrome] was incurred in service.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). … The same examination report indicated that appellant was “qualified for separation.”

Cox Construction Co. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,660 · United States Court of Claims · May 16, 1989

Construing “the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved,” 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(2)(A)(ii), the Court stated: [This phrase] must refer to attorneys ‘qualified for the proceedings’ in some specialized … Clearly, Congress intended the $75 rate as a cap, not a floor.

Holmes v. United States

92 Fed. Cl. 311 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2010

Plaintiff must shoulder the burden of “establishing] a substantive right of recovery to money damages from the United States.” Id. … To the contrary, plaintiff states: “Between 2001 and the present, [he] applied for various positions [for] which he was otherwise qualified.

Alkalay v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 93 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 26, 2002

Congressional consent to suit acts as a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980). … Waivers of sovereign immunity must be explicit and cannot be implied. United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 2 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969).

Salazar v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 1, 2021

The operative report clearly states that the surgery was done on the left ulnar nerve, not the right. See Pet. Ex. 21 at 1-2. … Chopra, opined that petitioner’s flu shot “clearly caused her injuries.” Pet. Ex. 16 at 1.

Green v. Commissioner

78 T.C. 428 · United States Tax Court · Mar 17, 1982

Petitioner also established the regularity of this use, as he testified that he used the room approximately 2% hours, 5 nights a week. … (a) In General. — There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, *** Petitioner clearly does not qualify under

Albino v. United States

104 Fed. Cl. 801 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2012

“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 , 61 S.Ct. 767 , 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941). … A waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969).

Estate of Mackie v. Commissioner

64 T.C. 308 · United States Tax Court · May 28, 1975

Had the provision not been included in the will, there appears to be no question that the bequest would have qualified for the marital deduction. … North Carolina National Bank, 256 N.C. 12 , 122 S.E. 2d 807 (1961), we see no reason to hold that it causes the interest established under this decedent’s will to be terminable. See 6 Page, Wills, sec. 49.10.

Candle Corp. of America v. United States International Trade Commission

259 F. Supp. 2d 1349 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 8, 2003

Furthermore, the second questionnaire clearly indicates that CCA did not support the petition. … Accordingly, the ITC’s determination that CCA could not qualify as an “affected domestic producer” due to its failure to support the petition is clearly supported by evidence in the record.

Maddox v. Commissioner

69 T.C. 854 · United States Tax Court · Mar 2, 1978

Finally we find the cases cited by petitioners in support of their position clearly inapposite. In all three cases, Waldrep v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 640 (1969), affd. 428 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir. 1970); Richards v. … will not be readily tradable in an established securities market), or (B) in any other form designed to render such bond or other evidence of indebtedness readily tradable in an established securities market, shall not be

L & B Products Corp. v. United States

66 Cust. Ct. 424 · United States Customs Court · Jun 8, 1971

The record there established that “the said articles [were] never used by themselves; that they [were] always used as pipe fittings; that their threaded interior [enabled] them to be connected with gas, water or air pipes … Since the cases cited the plaintiff dealt with “fittings” for a pipe system, they are factually clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

Montgomery v. Comm'r

122 T.C. 1 · United States Tax Court · Jan 22, 2004

In addition, section 6330(c)(2)(B) establishes the circumstances under which a person may challenge the existence or amount of his or her underlying tax liability. Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides: (2). … As we see it, if Congress had intended to preclude taxpayers from challenging in a collection review proceeding taxes that were assessed pursuant to section 6201(a)(1), the statute would have been drafted to clearly so provide

CORTEZ

25 I. & N. Dec. 301 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2010

INS, 612 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1980) (“A crime having as an element the intent to defraud clearly is one involving moral turpitude.”). … However, we stated in dicta that even if the respondent’s conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude, an issue that was not addressed by the Immigration Judge, he would not be precluded from establishing eligibility

Franklin Savings Corp. v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 720 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 16, 2003

The district court commenced its analysis by noting that because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over Franklin’s claim unless the government clearly waived its immunity … This argument is clearly infirm.