Case law

Arditi v. United States

37 Cust. Ct. 466 · United States Customs Court · Jun 27, 1956

In the instant case, plaintiff is clearly under the burden of proving the absence of a foreign value for the involved merchandise. … There is nothing before the court to indicate that he was qualified to testify as to any matters outside the scope of his firm’s business.

Sindram v. United States

67 Fed. Cl. 788 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 31, 2005

Opp. at 3. 9 To establish jurisdiction and standing in the United States Court of Federal Claims, Plaintiff must establish that it is a party to a contract with the Government or in privity therewith. … United States, 194 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed.Cir.1998) (“The effect of finding privity of contract between a party and the United States is to find a waiver of sovereign immunity.”).

Weston Solutions, Inc. v. United States

95 Fed. Cl. 311 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 25, 2010

Ratings for all six highly qualified firms were demarcated on a score sheet clearly labeled “Final” as follows: Board Member [Member 1] [Member 2] [Member 3] [Firm A ] Excellent + Excellent + Excellent + [Finn E ] Good o … In addition, to prevail in an action such as this, a party must also establish that it has been prejudiced by the agency decision it is challenging.

Lollytogs, Ltd. v. United States

55 Cust. Ct. 608 · United States Customs Court · Sep 29, 1965

It was further established that the so-called back-to-baek contracts incorporate precisely the same terms that appear on the invoices in issue herein. … concerned, it must be borne in mind that the manufacturers’ descriptions of the relationships of the various parties, their respective capacities as seller, purchaser, and the like, are but the lay opinions of persons not qualified

Trade Associates Group, Ltd. v. United States

961 F. Supp. 2d 1306 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 31, 2014

fall” within an exception Commerce established for “figurine” candles. … such exclusions because the plain language of the Order clearly encompasses those candle shapes.

Lichterman v. Commissioner

37 T.C. 586 · United States Tax Court · Dec 29, 1961

The regulations provide, however, that a private establishment, in order to be considered as a qualifying institution, must be regularly engaged in providing types of care or services referred to in the regulations. … However, insofar as the record shows, the school does not have any qualified medical personnel on its staff.

La Croix v. Commissioner

61 T.C. 471 · United States Tax Court · Jan 17, 1974

Petitioners conclude that since citrus trees are clearly tangible property and since they qualify as “section 38 property,” it follows that they qualify as “section 179 property.” … This exception to the rule is clearly not applicable here. in Rev.

Buckley v. United States

57 Fed. Cl. 328 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 19, 2003

Buckley clearly meets the applicable statutory standard. … As DEA investigators, DIs are clearly in the law enforcement or firefighting field and the DEA is clearly an organization having a law enforcement mission.

Carroll v. Commissioner

51 T.C. 213 · United States Tax Court · Oct 31, 1968

In addition, we believe that when the petitioner’s educational expenses are examined in the light of section 162 and the regulations thereunder, they do not qualify for deduction under that section. … Clearly, there is only a remote relationship between the study of Shakespeare’s plays and the petitioner’s work as a policeman.

Estate of Kincade v. Commissioner

69 T.C. 247 · United States Tax Court · Nov 16, 1977

There was no unity of possession. 9 Under Indiana law, an intention to create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship must be clearly and unequivocally manifested in the instrument that creates the estate. … Of course it is the intent of the purchaser that must be clearly manifested, not that of the broker, and the only evidence of Leonard’s intent was that the brokerage account was entitled “Kincade, Leonard P. and Mrs.

Foote v. United States

23 Ct. Cl. 443 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 5, 1888

This was clearly erroneous. Neither the Secretary of State nor the President had authority to fix the salary of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. … The claimant declined the new appointment tendered him, and never qualified by taking the oath and giving bond as required by law.

Dunham v. Secretary of the Dept. of Health & Human Services

18 Cl. Ct. 633 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 22, 1989

Immunization records from the Davis County Immunization System establish that Tess Dunham received a DPT vaccine in the United States, specifically, the state of Utah, thus fulfilling the requirements of parts (A) and (B) … The June 6, 1989, order clearly provided petitioners with such an option.

Executive Court Reporters, Inc. v. United States

29 Fed. Cl. 769 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 1, 1998

Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748 (citing cases). … According to defendant, the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative instructed plaintiff to contact him daily because hearing needs were established on a daily basis. .

Ethel R. Hurtt v. The United States

309 F.2d 404 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 7, 1962

for payment. 9 Defendant concludes its argument in its opposition brief with the following statement: “ * * * the intent of Congress * * * clearly shows that Congress desired to grant an increase to those who were already … who had not actually reached the age when payments under their established rights would begin.

Ryman v. Commissioner

51 T.C. 799 · United States Tax Court · Feb 28, 1969

Clearly, this expenditure was capital in nature and not deductible as a business expense in the year of payment. … Petitioner has the burden of proving that not only does the expenditure qualify under one of these sections, but also that it is not disqualified under any other section of the Code.

Van Der Aa Invs., Inc. v. Comm'r

125 T.C. 1 · United States Tax Court · Jul 6, 2005

Clearly, the author has relied on specialized knowledge in reaching the valuation conclusions expressed in the report. … A witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may give opinion testimony with respect to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within his purview. Fed. R.

C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States

673 F.2d 1268 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 18, 1982

Supp. 1216 ) and also stated that the record established “to the satisfaction of the court that the sole and, therefore, chief use of the imported merchandise is to supply water to hogs.” 560 F. Supp. 1214 . … Where there is a use provision qualified by a “not specially provided for” clause competing with a descriptive provision, the descriptive provision prevails unless it describes the merchandise in such vague and general terms

BAPTIST EDUCATION CENTER

20 I. & N. Dec. 723 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1993

In the absence of a fuller showing, the respondent's motion is clearly deficient. … Clearly, this suggests Rev.

Rucker v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 67 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 27, 1997

The letter stated that “radar emissions], microwave type radiation does not qualify for service connection under current provisions of the law, as it emits no ionizing radiation.” Ibid. … Young has treated the appellant at least since January 1989 (R. at 41, 61), the opinion is clearly based on more than conversations, and finally, “highly likely” is not “may or may not” terminology. See Tirpak v.

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2025

These aspects are clearly quantitative in nature but ultimately inform a qualitative assessment. … It is well established that an agency cannot evaluate proposals on unstated criteria. See Banknote, 56 Fed.