Case law

C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States

45 C.C.P.A. 43 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 13, 1957

Clearly, therefore, the holding of the Customs Court that “the provisions of paragraph 302 are to be read and applied in accordance with their common and popular signification, regardless of proof,” is not in order. … the commercial meaning of that term. *48 It is further asserted in the Government’s brief that appellant should have produced actual evidence as to how the imported merchandise was bought and sold rather than opinions of qualified

Northwestern Improvement Co. v. Commissioner

14 B.T.A. 79 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 8, 1928

Section 13 of the Revenue Act of 1916 provides: A corporation * * * keeping accounts upon any basis other than that of actual receipts and disbursements, unless such other basis does not -clearly reflect its income, may, … During all the time here involved the petitioner was a subsidiary but not affiliated corporation of the Northern Pacific Railway Co., which, except for qualifying shares, owned all its stock.

Meridian Products, LLC v. United States

37 F. Supp. 3d 1342 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 29, 2014

exhaustion would be ‘a useless formality,’ intervening legal authority ‘might have materially affected the agency’s actions,’ the issue involves ‘a pure question of law not requiring further factual development,’ where ‘clearly … Cir. 1997) (“[w]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under either equity or the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established

Carolina, C. & O. R. Co. v. Commissioner

82 T.C. 888 · United States Tax Court · Jun 4, 1984

Section 1.47-2(c), Income Tax Regs., clearly applies to that situation. … This clearly indicates that the temporary regulation was not intended to incorporate the rules of section 1.185-3, Income Tax Regs.

Hoffman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 26, 2023

The immune response is rapid and occurs in days to weeks. Pet. Ex. 22 at 1. Dr. … Miller is pediatric rheumatologist not qualified to opine on immunology. Dr.

Black & White Vegetable Co. v. United States

125 F. Supp. 2d 531 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 12, 2000

Cir. 1998) ("If an error qualifies as an 'error in the construction of a law,' that inquiry is dispositive, but if it does not so qualify, the party seeking correction must still show that its error fits within one of the … Defendant errs in placing too great a significance on these decisions which were clearly limited to their particular facts.

Francis Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.

687 F.2d 484 · Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 1982

Department of Energy, 655 F.2d 227, 233 (Em.App.1981), a damage claim “in the breach of contract sense” that alleges entitlement to a specific price based upon the federal price regulations clearly falls within TECA’s jurisdiction … The plain language of section 212.75 would seem to make clear that a property qualified as a “stripper well lease” prior to unitization would cease to qualify as a sepa *489 rate property, with a separate exemption, upon

Agma Security Service, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 26, 2022

Eligibility Requirements The EAJA statute also requires a party to meet certain eligibility requirements to qualify for EAJA compensation. … In any event, for EAJA purposes, it simply doesn’t matter what the Court’s ruling would have been, because that AGMA motion clearly was part of these “proceedings,” and therefore covered by EAJA. 28 U.S.C

CASTELLON

17 I. & N. Dec. 616 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1981

If the immigration officer concludes that the alien appears to be clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to enter the United States, he is admitted. … It is doubtful if more than a handful could qualify technically under the Refugee Act.

Sol O. Schlesinger, D.B.A. Ideal Uniform Cap Company v. The United States

383 F.2d 1004 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 13, 1967

No authority is offered in support of this proposition, and clearly our order does not substantiate it. … Contracts QM 1761 and TAP-1933 permitted the 5-percent discount if payment were made within 20 days; contract QM 13919 required payment within 15 days to qualify for the discount. 5 .

Rothenberg v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 7, 2018

The further the cells descend in the tube, the greater evidence of an inflammatory response of the immune system. … And he otherwise more clearly proposed an onset for Petitioner’s symptoms – October 12, 2012 (almost three months after vaccination), when she saw Dr.

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries

United States Tax Court · Apr 8, 2026

But, of course, the phrase “only if” establishes a necessary condition. It does not establish a sufficient condition. See, e.g., California v. … If we assume the earnings qualified as subpart F income for U.S.

Brownfield v. United States

148 Ct. Cl. 411 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 20, 1960

Clearly, Air Force Regulation 36-2 can be deemed invalid only if it contravenes the statute which authorizes the action which it regulates. … We think those other pertinent factors are clearly apparent in the record before us.

ANYELO

25 I. & N. Dec. 337 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2010

We further held that the Immigration Judge could exercise that authority only if it was established that the written notice complied with section 239(a), which requires the notice to contain warnings and advisals that the … Thus, the court in Dominguez never considered our holding in Matter of G-Y-R- that an address does not qualify as one provided under section 239(a)(1)(F) unless the notice with the necessary warnings and advisals was received

Myles v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 19, 2021

“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 (1941). The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” … Myles’s claims are clearly beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of this court or clearly fail as a matter of law. IT IS SO ORDERED. MARGARET M.

geiler/schrudde & Zimmerman v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2017

Although the Tucker Act explicitly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims, it “does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages.” … “To prove a direct economic interest as a putative prospective bidder, [the bidder] is required to establish that it had a ‘substantial chance’ of receiving the contract.” Id.; see also Info. Tech. & Appl. v.

Rio Grande Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Commissioner

36 T.C. 657 · United States Tax Court · Jul 12, 1961

A reading of section 23 (k) (1) indicates the clear requirement that a reserve account must be established to qualify for a bad debt deduction if the taxpayer chooses the reserve method. … We cannot agree inasmuch as the situations presented are clearly distinguishable.

Hess Building Co. v. Commissioner

15 B.T.A. 891 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 15, 1929

Prior to March 1, 1913, many of the leaders in the silk, woolen, and other trades were permanently established within the district. … The evidence clearly shows, we believe, that at March 1, 1913, the petitioner was practically assured of a substantial profit from the operation of the Hess building.

Pomeroy Coop. Grain Co. v. Commissioner

31 T.C. 674 · United States Tax Court · Dec 31, 1958

During all taxable years involved, it qualified and was operated as a farmers’ “cooperative association” under chapter 499 of the Codes of Iowa, 1950 and 1954. 2 It did not qualify (which it concedes) as a tax-exempt cooperative … Applying the principles established by the authorities which we have hereinabove cited to the facts of the instant case, we reach the following conclusions: 1.

Mine Safety Appliances Company and United Tanks, Inc. v. The United States

364 F.2d 385 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1966

The Government’s patent rights under the Navy contract were established by Section 17 of that document: (a) Where used in this Section, and not elsewhere in this contract, the expression “Subject Invention” means each invention … In other respects U.S.C. explicitly recognized that projects carried on under the umbrella of the OSRD contract were extended under the Navy program; and the Navy clearly considered its contract to be a prolongation of the