Case law

Missouri Health & Medical Organization, Inc. v. United States

641 F.2d 870 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 28, 1981

Persons having income below specified máxi-mums qualified for membership under MHMO’s group III plan for the medically indigent. … The central provision which establishes our jurisdiction is that part of the Tucker Act now codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1491 : The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States

Bonewell v. United States

87 Fed. Cl. 413 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 26, 2009

a more accurate record upon which to base the Board’s decision,” and represented that once the facts had been more clearly established, it would “be happy to provide an opinion at that time on the state of the law concerning … Here, Congress has authorized the payment of SBP annuities to qualifying individuals.

Rio Hondo Memorial Hospital v. United States

689 F.2d 1025 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 22, 1982

Associates qualifies as an "organization related to the provider by common ownership” by virtue of owning 100 percent of Hospital’s stock and facilities. … The transaction in question occurred prior to July 1, 1966, and falls clearly within the express exception.

D-J-L

29 I. & N. Dec. 485 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Mar 5, 2026

Karshan to be a qualified expert witness, determined that her declaration was reliable and probative, and relied heavily upon her testimony and declaration in determining that the applicant established a clear probability … Thus, we conclude the Immigration Judge clearly erred in finding Ms. Karshan’s opinion persuasive and assigning her testimony significant weight.

Pied Piper Shoe Co. v. Commissioner

28 T.C. 499 · United States Tax Court · May 28, 1957

First, the temporary and unusual character of the circumstance or event must be clearly established. … This is not a physical event such as would qualify the petitioner for relief under section 722 (b) (1).

American Innotek, Inc. v. United States

113 Fed. Cl. 668 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 24, 2013

JWOD established the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (“the Committee”), an independent federal agency, to facilitate the Government’s “purchase of commodities and services from qualified … The Committee maintains a procurement list of supplies and services that must be purchased from “any qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or by any qualified nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped.” 41 U.S.C.

Richards v. United States

20 Cl. Ct. 753 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 9, 1990

In that connection, it is wejl established by court decisions that if and when the Federal Government takes private property for public use, it is the owner — and only the owner — of such property, at the time of the taking … Even assuming, but by no means acknowledging, that plaintiffs allegations were found to be true, such claims sound in tort and as such also are clearly outside the jurisdiction of the United States Claims Court. 28 U.S.C.

VALENZUELA

25 I. & N. Dec. 867 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2012

a second attempt to adjust her status based on the visa petition filed by the K visa petitioner, but her application was denied on May 25, 2007, because the first Form I-130 had been denied and the respondent no longer qualified … K visa beneficiary has been established.

Short v. United States

28 Fed. Cl. 590 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 6, 1993

The section does not define the point at which an entitlement is “established” for the purposes of the Act; therefore the court interprets it to incorporate the law of Short to pinpoint when an entitlement is established. … United States, 12 Cl.Ct. 36 (1987) (Short IV) (establishing a formula for determining the proper measure of damages and interest to qualified plaintiffs). .

Obsidian Solutions Group, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 8, 2021

The Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity “covers a broad range of potential disputes arising during the course of the procurement process.” Sys. Application & Techs., Inc. v. … Section 3(a)(2) is entitled “Establishment of size standards.” 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(2).

Dyess v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 448 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 5, 1991

accordance with the requirement in law that, if a veteran’s claim is established by a fair preponderance of the evidence, it will be granted.” … He maintains that the VA general surgeon, in stating that he was unable to relate the pes planus to the knee condition, did not opine that there was no connection; instead, he referred the veteran to a specialist more qualified

Anderson Columbia Environmental, Inc. v. United States

43 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,435 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 19, 1999

Because that has not as yet occurred, the court may not grant Tanner “interested party” status even under the standard established by the GAO rules. Cf. WinStar, 41 Fed. … Extending the court’s jurisdiction to intervenors not qualifying as interested parties pursuant to the ADRA would violate the longstanding principle that waivers of immunity must be narrowly construed. See 441 4th St.

Acevedo v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2015

addition to delineating the relationship between danger pay allowances and other post differentials, the DSSR prescribes the criteria and procedures that the Secretary of State will use to determine which posts of duty qualify … The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to allow a suit for money damages (United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 215 (1983)), but it does not confer any substantive rights. United States v.

KDH Corp. v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,087 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 30, 1991

Conceding that a joint venture is most like a partnership, defendant argues that a joint venture is not immune from federal contract law. … clearly did not have the authority to do so on behalf of the joint venture.

General State Authority Building Designs

81 Pa. D. & C. 326 · Pennsylvania Department of Justice · Apr 18, 1952

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, on the basis of the rule of sovereign immunity, held that the prohibition did not apply to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. *328 Nor does the fact that the General State Authority is … Indeed, the applicability of the presumption to the General State Authority itself was definitely established in Marianelli v.

New Valley Corp. v. United States

67 Fed. Cl. 277 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 19, 2005

The sale of the satellite, in other words, does not qualify as an undertaking in the mitigation of damages. Id. at 12. … Accordingly, it is that same hypothetical transaction to which we now must look to establish the measure of plaintiff’s damages.

Zellerbach v. Commissioner

9 T.C. 89 · United States Tax Court · Jul 22, 1947

under local law to obtain income or compel a distribution of income” (Regulations 111, sec. 29.162-2 (b)), stating: The legatees did have the privilege of petitioning the court, which they did not exercise, and if they had established … Chick, the son of decedent, who was named both as executor and trustee under the will, immediately qualified as executor and shortly thereafter qualified as trustee.

Legg v. Commissioner

57 T.C. 164 · United States Tax Court · Nov 1, 1971

Wells & Wade Fruit Co., the purchaser of petitioners’ orchard property, is a well-established corporation located in Wenatchee, Wash. … To reach any other result would clearly frustrate the intent of Congress in enacting section 453 (d).

Taylor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 2, 2018

Eighty to ninety percent of his research involves immune system responses to viruses, bacteria, and live virus vaccines. Id. at 231. … This course of illness, clearly established by the record in this case, is not 30 consistent with ADEM’s course as best understood.

Ad Hoc Utilities Group v. United States

650 F. Supp. 2d 1318 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 15, 2009

standard, the court will address each of AHUG’s arguments in turn.12 12 As the court recognized in its prior order, a plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction, bears the burden to establish … As was noted by the court, this was clearly not the case here, as only a small minority of AHUG members claimed to have such “importer” status.