Case law

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.”

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.

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.

Glen P. Gradall v. The United States

329 F.2d 960 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1963

They are integral parts of the War Department, share in fulfilling the duties entrusted to it, and partake of whatever immunities it may have under the constitution and federal statutes. * * *” It is evident that Congress … From section 201 through 216 of the Act, the purpose of the Congress to curtail expenditures from appropriated funds in Government employment is clearly apparent.

Sandstrom v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 481 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 8, 2002

Id. *483 In August 1996, VA responded to the veteran’s letter and advised him that the “monthly compensation rates are established by law. … immunity for purposes of an increased COLA.

Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States

441 F. Supp. 2d 1259 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 14, 2006

Moreover, the eBay Court based the test on "well-established principles of equity." Id. at 1839. … Clearly then, this argument must be rejected, and the court concludes that the public interest in the enforcement of the law weighs in favor of issuance of an injunction.

Stone Container Corp. v. United States

27 F. Supp. 2d 195 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 5, 1998

Baxter clearly was intended to apply to all HMT payments on foreign exports, the same claims involved here. … Given that the HMT statute clearly provided for a remedy in this court, as U.S.

Koopmann v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2020

There is no statutory support for excluding claims arising out of section 3121(v)(2) for the time limitations established by § 6511(a). … One of those conditions is the statute of limitations, which reflects Congress's decision to waive sovereign immunity only if suit is brought within a specific time period. See Walby v.

Copenhaver ex rel. Copenhaver v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

129 Fed. Cl. 176 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 5, 2016

Vaccine case; Motion for Review; Hepatitis-B vaccination; Standard of review; Al-then\ Failure to establish causation; Motion for Review denied. … This case clearly centered on vaccine triggered cytokine expression. Dec. at 14. Dr.

LCM Energy Solutions v. United States

107 Fed. Cl. 770 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 26, 2012

However, while the Tucker Act contains both a grant of jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity, Fisher v. … Congress foresaw — indeed intended — that businesses and individuals would structure investment and lending relationships in reliance on Treasury’s clearly defined duties under Section 1603. Id. at 8.

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)

Cunningham v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2016

Shafrir asserted, show that autoimmunity and immune dysfunction are “established” as causing autism Dr. … Thus Petitioner’s claim clearly fails under Althen Prong 1. 3. Petitioner has failed to establish Prong 2 of Althen in this case.

Hall v. United States

69 Fed. Cl. 51 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2005

Consent must occur through an unequivocal, express waiver of sovereign immunity. Id. … The ECOA contains a waiver of the United States sovereign immunity. See Moore v. U.S.

NEW YORK STATE DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

22 I. & N. Dec. 215 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1998

While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly must be established that the alien’s past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest.6 The inclusion of the … The alien, however, clearly must have established, in some capacity, the ability to serve the national interest to a substantially greater extent than the majority of his or her colleagues.

Coombs v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 29, 2014

Wiznitzer responded, “the answer is clearly yes.” (Tr. 214.) After extensive recitation of RWC’s medical history, Dr. Wiznitzer, who as described above is much better qualified than Dr. … The short answer is that I find that Petitioners’ theory in this case clearly does not satisfy the Althen test. A.

Furash & Co. v. United States

46 Fed. Cl. 518 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 26, 2000

This jurisdictional limitation cannot be modified by contract; it is a limitation established by Congress that is embodied in statute. … There the court, in addressing the question whether the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was immune from suit, stated the following: A waiver of federal sovereign immunity can be found in one of two places

Harper/Nielsen-Dillingham, Builders, Inc. v. United States

81 Fed. Cl. 667 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 29, 2008

Cont.Code § 7102 does not apply to the subcontract in this ease *679 because the federal government is clearly not a “public agency” as defined in Cal. Govt. Code § 4401 . … Thus, the government established that the subcontract in this case contained an unambiguous “no damage for delay” clause completely immunizing Harper from liability for delay damages to KCI and established that KCI would

DeRoche v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,362 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 18, 1983

Any waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to suit must be clearly expressed and strictly construed. United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1502 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969); United States v. … HUD’s disbursal and oversight of grant funds to BIHA were clearly “sovereign acts of the Government and were not directed solely to the [plaintiffs] but affected the general public and were done for the common good and the

CHURCH SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

19 I. & N. Dec. 593 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1988

Criteria for a qualifying relationship between entities Case law has confirmed that ownership and control are the fac- tors for establishing a qualifying relationship between United States and foreign entities for purposes … The tests and standards of proof utilized in this proceeding have been clearly established through regulation and administrative case law, as discussed at length above.

Sherman E. Morris v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 494 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 20, 2014

To hold otherwise, the Federal Circuit noted, “would lead to the peculiar result whereby non-qualifying heirs of veterans with fiduciaries could receive the veteran’s accrued unpaid benefits, while non-qualifying heirs of … Morris’s characterization of section 5121 as a “minor statute” that “established a limited exception to the Secretary’s long-established processes.” Appellant’s Br. at 20.