Case law

Pacific National Cellular v. United States

41 Fed. Cl. 20 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 1998

Moreover, a waiver of the traditional sovereign immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United States v. … The making of such inherently contradictory claims, however, does not establish that if one is rejected the other is necessarily justified. Rains v.

Tanenbaum v. Commissioner

58 T.C. 1 · United States Tax Court · Apr 4, 1972

The petitioner does not qualify for the exclusion under any of these tests. … In the alternative, petitioner contends that the Commissioner’s regulations are discriminatory in denying to him the exclusion solely because his religious faith has no established hierarchy.

T-M-B

21 I. & N. Dec. 775 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1997

Mixed Motive The burden of establishing eligibility for asylum lies with the applicant. … As the extreme nature of the threats or the severity of the methods used to enforce extortion demands increase, so increases the likelihood that a victim can establish that she qualifies for asy- lum.

Bakken v. Commissioner

51 T.C. 603 · United States Tax Court · Jan 13, 1969

Commissioner disallowed the claimed deduction with the explanation: It is held that the amount of $1,583.00 which represents your expenses while attending the University of Santa Clara School of Law in the year 1965 does not qualify … Such expenditures are clearly nondeductible under the 1967 regulations.

Ulmet v. United States

17 Cl. Ct. 679 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 25, 1989

Although it is an established principle that Congress controls the plaintiff’s right to military pay, see Norman v. … Therefore, even if this court was inclined to utilize the unamended statute and to insist that when qualifying for a privilege such as retirement benefits that the statutory requirements be clearly met by a potential beneficiary

New Dynamics Foundation v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 782 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 24, 2006

The final ruling stated that NDF did not qualify as an exempt entity because it failed to establish: (i) that it was operated exclusively for purposes described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code; (ii) that its net earnings … An Advisory Committee is established over that account. The NDF Board of Directors establishes each Advisory Committee with at least three members of legal age.

Cockrill v. United States

161 Ct. Cl. 752 · United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1963

Establishment. — a. … Legal status. — Clubs governed by these regulations are integral parts of the Military Establishment, are wholly owned Government instrumentalities, and are entitled to the immunities and privileges of such in-strumentalities

Fisher v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 3, 2024

Of course, not establishing the alleged injury in this case is equivalent to failing to prove that the flu vaccine “did cause” it (meaning the second Althen prong is not established). … Andersson was a qualified and competent expert, fully capable of offering an opinion on the neurologic issues in dispute, and he made many credible points in Petitioner’s favor.

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

Laruan v. West

11 Vet. App. 80 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 3, 1998

VA, and indeed this Court, are without authority to abrogate the statutory requirement of qualifying service. Duro, supra. Accordingly, the Court holds that to the extent that Mr. … It is not for protracted and delaying negotiation where the issue is clearly defined and further debate would be but a waste of time — ours and those concerned with our decisions.

Stockton East Water District v. United States

76 Fed. Cl. 497 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 18, 2007

accordingly, even if the Appropriations Act was a sovereign act, HUD was still obligated to fulfill its obligations under the Repayment Agreement through the substitute performance of providing direct loans to Carabetta’s qualifying … into by the Government would immunize the Government from liability.

Jazz Photo Corp. v. United States

502 F. Supp. 2d 1277 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 16, 2007

The court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a “first sale” in the United States for the LFFPs processed from the Seven Buck’s shells, which accordingly did not qualify for admission. Id. at 1348-50. … The court next considers whether Jazz qualifies as a prevailing party for EAJA purposes.

Farmers Cooperative Co. v. Commissioner

33 T.C. 266 · United States Tax Court · Nov 17, 1959

The foregoing decisions indicate that an allocation of earnings by a cooperative to its patrons cannot qualify as a true patronage dividend unless (1) the allocation was made pursuant to a legal obligation which existed at … The fact that a patronage refund was accrued by the cooperative in favor of its patron is not alone sufficient to establish the excludibility of the refund.

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).

Cappellini v. Commissioner

14 B.T.A. 1269 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 15, 1929

This is clearly settled by the decision of this Court in Hawkins v. Bleakly, 243 U. S. 210, 216 . … That this is true clearly appears from the Conference Report on the Revenue Bill of 1926 (69th Cong.. 1st sess., Rept.

Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co. v. United States

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 273 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 14, 1995

If not, does Commerce clearly provide reasonable grounds for departing from established criteria used in determining the by-product question? … In its remand results, Commerce is ordered to clearly set forth the criteria used, a reasonable explanation for any departure from established criteria if necessary, the facts used, and the conclusions reached in light of

Chavez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 15, 2022

Respondent’s expert stated T.C.’s epileptic encephalopathy “was clearly present from early infancy and, by report, did not worsen in the immediate days after any of her immunizations. … Wiznitzer opined that “[a] diagnosis of an epileptic encephalopathy . . . was clearly present from the time of birth, and by report, did not worsen in the immediate days after any of her immunizations.

G4s Technology LLC v. United States

114 Fed. Cl. 662 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 11, 2014

Cir. 1997) (plaintiff must “fall within a class clearly intended to be benefited thereby”). … Indeed, because waivers of sovereign immunity are construed narrowly, the right to sue the government on a contract to which one is not a party constitutes an “exceptional privilege.” Glass v.

Iowa Tribe of Indians v. United States

68 Ct. Cl. 585 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 2, 1929

Contracts, treaties, and agreements as the result of such negotiations have been repeatedly before the courts, and without exception the actual agreement as understood by the Indians has been enforced when it is clearly established … The standard of intelligence among the Iowas makes it exceedingly difficult to make them understand that they have but a limited and qualified interest.

BUSTAMANTE

25 I. & N. Dec. 564 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2011

See sections 212(a)(2)(D), (E) of the Act (relating to prostitution and the commission of a serious offense for which immunity was exercised). … However, admissibility is not a statutory prerequisite for establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal.