Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.56s
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Dec 1, 2016
B3 Solutions bears the burden of establishing the Board's jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Reynolds v. … The CDA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, and as such it must be strictly construed. Winter v. FloorPro, Inc., 570 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Cited 0 timesPublished11 Ct. Cust. 446 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1923
Hearne, a witness connected with the importing firm who had been in the business of buying and importing machines some 25 or 30 years, and had qualified as an expert in patent cases involving sewing machines, testified as … We think the evidence here clearly establishes that the primary construction and design of these machines are for sewing and not for embroidering.
Cited 7 timesPublishedAllegheny Technologies Incorporated v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 17, 2018
The component of Medicare Part D that provides subsidies to qualifying, employer-sponsored health plans through the RDS program is implemented in 42 C.F.R. §§ 423.880-.894.1 Health plans are considered “qualified” if they … Because [the plaintiff] can bring an action under the Tucker Act or Little Tucker Act to redress the allegedly improper exaction, there is no waiver of sovereign immunity under the APA.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedKozel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 2, 2018
Kozel’s] autonomic and immune system dysfunctions were caused by his receipt of, and reaction to, the [human papillomavirus] vaccine.” Id. In opposing Mr. … But, as noted above, the evidentiary 3 threshold for establishing reasonable basis is less than the preponderance of the evidence. Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublished25 Cl. Ct. 131 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 23, 1992
immunity and consented to be sued. … revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was ‘clearly
Cited 9 timesPublished50 T.C. 823 · United States Tax Court · Sep 9, 1968
That the regulations plainly support the Commissioner’s position 5 is not disputed, and, in our judgment, they are clearly valid. Petitioner ignored them at his peril. … Thus, (e) (1) makes clear that subsection (a) may not be relied upon to disallow deductions for “business meals” that qualify under (e)(1).
Cited 799 timesPublishedSpayde v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 23, 2021
He added that “while the classic manifestation of [GBS] may not yet be observable, the antigen or antigens may have induced the immune system to respond[,] initiating a complex reaction within the entire immune system of … He opined that she “clearly suffered a viral illness and clearly had an abnormal spinal fluid, [and] had a borderline electrophysiologic study.” Tr. 271.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBaar & Beards, Inc. v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 523 · United States Customs Court · Apr 16, 1958
At the trial of said suits, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff, there was admitted in evidence the deposition of Jai Krishna Khanna and Rishab Das, both of whom were well qualified to testify regarding the component material … Their testimony stands without contradiction and clearly establishes that the merchandise represented by the style numbers listed in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, wherever such style numbers appear
Cited 0 timesPublished13 Vet. App. 163 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 17, 1999
In March 1948, a physical examination found the appellant physically qualified for transfer, and no defects were noted. … The benefits sought on appeal must be clearly identified.” Id.
Cited 7 timesPublishedConsolidation Coal Co. v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 489 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 8, 2011
The stay sought by plaintiffs is clearly indefinite. Plaintiffs ask the Court to delay litigation of these cases while another case, Coal River Energy LLC v. … Staying litigation in order to let plaintiffs have a second bite at the apple does not establish a compelling need.
Cited 4 timesPublished444 F.2d 568 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1971
On the contrary, the evidence establishes that subsequent to the time plaintiff and Mr. … This does not mean that the Government is completely immunized from suit under the Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance Act.
Cited 5 timesPublished5 Cl. Ct. 146 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 13, 1984
Conversely, plaintiff claims that the April 26, 1983 letter, supra, establishes a valid unconditional promotion to Commander. … Moreover, the record clearly indicates that plaintiff was not qualified to perform operational flying duty after September 1979, and also contains no evidence that plaintiff executed a written agreement to remain on active
Cited 14 timesPublished14 Vet. App. 269 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 12, 2001
This Court has established two requirements as to the status of an attorney for whose representation a party seeks EAJA fees. … This failure is especially significant because Rule 46(d)(3) clearly required his signature on such pleadings.
Cited 5 timesPublished113 Ct. Cl. 182 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 7, 1949
Even assuming the official *189 establishment of the Assistant position to which Mr. Simon was detailed, these regulations would have had to be applied. … It seems to us that plaintiff promptly took the proper steps to establish his right to his position, which steps brought about his reinstatement.
Cited 37 timesPublished8 I. & N. Dec. 217 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1958
He is given the right to join his citizen spouse without the delay involved in qualifying under the quota. … We find that the record clearly justifies the finding of the special inquiry officer that the parties did not intend to consider themselves as husband and wife. We find no prejudicial error committed.
Cited 14 timesPublished19 I. & N. Dec. 439 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1987
Thus, once an alien has established that he qualifies for that relief, and that he is not ineligible under the pro- visions of section 243(h)(2), it must be granted, and he cannot then be returned to the country where he … Moreover, a rea- sonable person may well fear persecution even where its likelihood is significantly less than clearly probable.
Abrogated on other grounds by a later decision, 118 F.3d 641 (1997)Cited 414 timesPublishedConsolidated Bearings Co. v. United States
166 F. Supp. 2d 580 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 5, 2001
Supp. 454, 476 (1987); Rhone Poulenc, S.A., 7 CIT at 2 See note 1. 3 Consolidated Bearings’ argument that the case qualifies for the “clearly applicable precedent” exception because Consolidated … Had Commerce intended for the language of the Liquidation Instructions to set out Commerce’s new policy, Commerce’s action would clearly qualify as a rule and be subject to the notice and comment procedure detailed in
Reversed on other grounds by Consolidated Bearings Company, Plaintiff-Cross v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (2003)Cited 35 timesPublished326 F.2d 780 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964
We think those circumstances clearly establish that appellant’s services have a direct effect on interstate commerce. As stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in Bulova Watch Co., Inc. v. … In my judgment Bookbinder’s, supra, is clearly apposite and is binding on this court unless and until it is judicially qualified or repudiated. A long line of Patent Office decisions has been predicated on it.
Cited 17 timesPublishedModa Health Plan, Inc. v. United States
130 Fed. Cl. 436 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 9, 2017
--The Secretary shall establish and administer a program of risk corridors for calendar years 2014, 2015, and 2016 under which a qualified health plan offered in the individual or small … The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2012), waives sovereign immunity for claims predicated on the Constitution, a federal statute or regulation, or a contract with the Government.
Reversed by Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1311 (2018)Cited 14 timesPublishedBynum v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2024
those with immune dysfunction.” … To qualify, a person must have at least three of these criteria and no other explanation for the disease. Exhibit 43 (Vivino) at 29.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna