Case law

Tremell L. Warren v. Robert A. McDonald

28 Vet. App. 194 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 10, 2016

Warren argues that the Board's finding that he is not entitled to a higher disability rating under Diagnostic Code 7806 is clearly erroneous. … Given the evidence of record that establishes that Mr.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Federal Energy Administration

556 F.2d 542 · Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · May 17, 1977

Boyett distributing “Arco-refined petroleum products under the terms of Arco’s Commission Distributor Agreement clearly fall within the definition of ‘wholesale purchaser-reseller’ ” as defined in the Mandatory Petroleum … Wallace, an ARCO commission tank truck distributor, qualified as a wholesale purchaser-reseller under the same regulation. 3 ARCO’s complaint in the district court was answered by FEA, and certain Atlantic Richfield commission

C-A-S-D

27 I. & N. Dec. 692 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2019

extremely unusual hardship to the alien or to his qualifying relatives. … or to his qualifying relatives.

Vaughan ex rel. A. H. v. United States

107 Fed. Cl. 212 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 14, 2012

caused by immunizations” is rejected as raised, at best, the “questionable role of the immunizations; at worst, it merely reflects historical information from sources unknown to us.” Decision at 24. … The second is that, logically speaking, not one of the records cited establishes that A.H. suffered from seizures prior to December 28.

Brown

566 F.2d 1188 · United States Court of Claims · May 13, 1977

Not only does *755 the suit sound in tort (and is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1491 ), but an application of the doctrine of judicial immunity requires dismissal: Few doctrines [are] more solidly established at common law than the … immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.

Giles v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services

37 Fed. Cl. 525 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 7, 1997

Glezen to be “a highly-qualified and extraordinarily compelling witness,” and stated that the testimony of petitioners’ expert witnesses “do not dissuade the special master.” … Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that the witnesses proffered as medical experts by each side were qualified as experts. . Dr.

United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe

518 F.2d 1309 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 11, 1975

United States, 302 U.S. 329 (1937). *379 The rule of sovereign immunity from suit against the Government without its consent is firmly established in our judicial system. … It was clearly for trusts of this definite character, established as we have said, by law, that the act of 181¡.l proposed to establish a general system.

Rogelio Salazar Cavazos v. United States

2012 CIT 82 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 14, 2012

The party seeking to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 29 CIT 1082, 1088, 398 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1332 (2005). … It is a well- settled principle of sovereign immunity, however, that the United States can only be sued it if waives immunity from a particular claim. U.S. JVC Corp. v. United States, 22 CIT 687, 691-92, 15 F.

Morales v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 27, 2019

Shafrir, a well-qualified neurologist and epileptologist, opined that status epilepticus can lower the threshold for further seizures. … The records more clearly establish that on March 29 temporal relationship between M.S.M.’s fourth DTaP, Hib, and PCV vaccinations received on December 26, 2013 and

Exum v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2025

In Respondent’s view, the Chief Special Master “clearly did not demand ‘complete and direct proof.’ … Here, the Chief Special Master clearly did so.

Sodexho Marriott Management, Inc. v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 229 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 2, 2004

Based upon this argument, its analysis of selected NAFI and nonappropriated funds doctrine cases, and a brief discussion of MCCS funding, the plaintiff concludes that “MCCS should not qualify for NAFI immunity. … Thus, the first of the three elements has been established. To establish the second element, a plaintiff must make a showing that there is probable jurisdiction in the district court. Sanders v.

Omega World Travel, Inc. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,306 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 24, 1986

It is clear beyond cavil, therefore, that by § 1491(a)(3) Congress waived sovereign immunity and made an equitable remedy available in this court only under the limited circumstances when it is established that a claim over … Here, in the case at hand, not only have plaintiffs failed to establish that they were bidders to a particular solicitation, but they have also failed to establish that there is outstanding a specific viable solicitation

Shaver Partnership v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,069 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 12, 1987

Clearly, the plaintiffs complaint is time barred due to its failure to file within the statutory period. Moreover, case law dictates that statutes waiving sovereign immunity must be strictly construed. … The date delimiting the sovereign’s waiver of immunity would fluctuate with the vagaries of individual business practices.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Alaska

945 F.2d 1575 · Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1991

Our review of the record clearly indicates that Exxon and ARCO “wish to establish what is in effect a federal defense to a purely state law enforcement action.” Exxon Corp. v. … Conclusion This case is properly before TECA, for the district court clearly considered and adjudicated two ESA issues, the scope of the ESA’s exclusive jurisdictional provisions and the nature of the FSA established pursuant

Putman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 1, 2022

Gershwin qualified several of his points regarding the relevance of molecular mimicry herein. … Respondent offered a qualified immunologist to oppose the theory, and the special master deemed the causation theory not to have been preponderantly established 14 (although the special master’s decision was equally based

Strom v. Commissioner

6 T.C. 621 · United States Tax Court · Mar 29, 1946

Respondent emphasizes that since the Quinaielt Treaty provides for no immunity from taxation, such immunity may not be implied. … He takes the position that the income in question thus comes clearly within the definition of section 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code, that obviously it does not fall within any one of the exclusions of subsection (b)

Eberline v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 15, 2026

Kinet then explains that to “establish[] causation between a vaccine and a disease” medical experts “require that the natural infection against which the vaccine protects, being generally a stronger immune stimulus, should … conclusion of the law”; (3) “the [special master’s] findings are clearly erroneous”; or (4) “the record contains no evidence upon which” the special master rationally “could have based [his] decision.”

Randolph v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 7, 2021

Steinman’s lumping of BBE with ADEM, noting that although both were “monophasic immune mediated inflammatory diseases of the CNS,” it was not unquestionably established that both reflected either an autoimmune attack on MBP … And that 30-day period reveals no evidence of any aberrant immune response.

Stillwell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

118 Fed. Cl. 47 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 5, 2014

“An abuse of discretion may be found when (1) the court's decision is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) the decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of the law; (3) the court's findings are clearly erroneous … The Federal Circuit, in Hibbard, upheld the Special Master’s decision, without any of the qualifying language used in Broekelschen and Lombardi.

Board of County Com'rs of Sedgwick County v. United States

105 F. Supp. 995 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1952

Thus it is well established in the Kansas courts that such exemptions must be strictly construed, Clements v. Ljungdahl, 161 Kan. 274 , 167 P.2d 603 ; Palmer v. … State Commission of Revenue and Taxation, 156 Kan. 690 , 135 P.2d 899 ; and it has been said that the claimant of the tax exemption “must establish beyond a reasonable doubt his right thereto.”