Case law

Application of Philip S. Fay and Fred J. Fox

347 F.2d 597 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1965

This clearly excludes halogenated ethanes and propenes. … The role of affidavits in resolving the legal issue of obviousness under section 108 is well established.

Uniq Computer Corp. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,852 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 23, 1990

We think this lack of present intent was adequately communicated by the qualified language of the December 3rd letter, and that such was the meaning attached to the letter by Uniq. … The reasons for contracting through the use of options were clearly set out in contract clause H-19, “Fixed Price Options Provision.” See note 7 supra.

Elkins v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 422 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 21, 1992

The failure of a veteran to qualify for release from liability under this subsection does not preclude relief from being granted under [section] [5302(b) (formerly § 3102)] of this title, if eligible thereunder. 38 U.S.C. … However, as we observed in Schaper , “it appears that the law and regulation establish three criteria all of which must be met in order to qualify for a retroactive release — namely, at the time of transfer, there must have

Black Hills Corp. v. Commissioner

101 T.C. 173 · United States Tax Court · Aug 3, 1993

If so, deductions in excess of those allowed by respondent clearly would appear appropriate. Id. 2. … The premium is tentatively established on the basis of estimated payroll information supplied by the mine operator.

MATELOT

18 I. & N. Dec. 334 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1982

Thus, the record clearly establishes that the applicant is excludable under section 212(a)(20) of the Act as an immigrant without a valid immigrant visa or other valid entry document. … Further, on this record we are unable to conclude that the questioning and possible arrest of the applicant by the Ton Ton Macoutes qualifies the applicant for asylum and section 243(h) relief, particularly when the contents

United States v. Hillier's Son Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 216 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1926

The cases are clearly distinguishable. The case of United States v. … The provision for “resins” in paragraph 1584 is similarly qualified.

Riser v. United States

97 Fed. Cl. 679 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2011

Jurisdiction “Jurisdiction must be established as a threshold matter before the court may proceed with the merits of this or any other action.” OTI Am., Inc. v. … Riser “are given some leniency in presenting their case, [but] their pro se status does not immunize them from pleading facts upon which a valid claim can rest.” Hutchens v. United States, 89 Fed.Cl. 553, 560 (2009).

Servidone Construction Corp. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,893 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 28, 1990

In addition, in filing its complaint, Servidone fractured out of the original embankment claim several issues, which although separately articulated in the complaint, were never clearly segregated at trial. … The Government argues that applying the same potential liability to it under section 2412(a) would abrogate the principle of sovereign immunity. The court disagrees.

Anderson v. United States

85 Fed. Cl. 532 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 28, 2009

The Tucker Act provides the waiver of sovereign immunity necessary to sue the United States for money damages, but the plaintiff must establish an independent substantive right to money damages from the United States, that … The logic of plaintiffs argument is simply inconsistent with the limited waiver of sovereign immunity provided by the Tucker Act. See, e.g., Orff v.

West Coast Meat Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp

197 F.2d 866 · Emergency Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1952

representing about 15% of the total production, it was believed that the Administrator's legal duty to provide relief was limited to those who historically belonged to that segment. (2) Administration of the subsidy program clearly … required establishment of a base period as a condition of eligibility.

Stotts v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

23 Cl. Ct. 352 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 4, 1991

The special master’s interpretation of the authority granted to her by § 300aa-15(f)(4)(A) was not “clearly mistaken,” nor was it contrary to any clearly discernable legislative intent, supra. … As we have clearly established, the only factor limiting the special master’s discretion in controlling the use of award proceeds under § 300aa-15(f)(4)(A) is the best interests of the petitioner, and there is no statutory

Southern California Edison Co. v. Commissioner

19 T.C. 935 · United States Tax Court · Mar 4, 1953

If, in order to qualify under (b) (2), it establishes that the increase in sales to others after the cities’ shift to Boulder power was merely a replacement of the cities’ business and that it therefore satisfies the “temporary … In this, we consider petitioner to be clearly wrong, because it seeks improperly to go beyond the base period in ascertaining normal earnings.

Furey v. United States

70 Ct. Cl. 299 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 2, 1930

In the use of this latter term Congress was addressing legislation to a service long since established, organized under prior laws, permanent in character, and to be continued. … Congress used the term “ permanent service ” and by so doing clearly recognized the right to pay and allowances so fixed for service in the guard of indefinite tenure, to which the officer was appointed.

Service Bolt & Nut Co. Profit Sharing Trust v. Commissioner

78 T.C. 812 · United States Tax Court · May 20, 1982

While, as petitioners point out, a "silent partner” is not necessarily the same thing as a "limited partner,” we think the above example clearly demonstrates Congress’ intent to include exempt organizations’ distributive … We do not know, for example, if petitioners embarked on their elaborate scheme of establishing corporations, partnerships, and trusts on the advice of competent tax counsel, or even against such advice.

Jacobs v. United States

181 Ct. Cl. 1141 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1967

As the evidence in the record fails to establish that Dr. … The evidence in the record does not establish that Dr.

Fox v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2025

must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited exception; suffered the residual … See Ex. 2 at 39; see e.g., Ex. 5 at 24 (“I suspect her immunization was injected into the infraspinatus tendon”).

Brestle v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2018

immunity as to the types of claims allowed. … A definite offer and an unconditional acceptance must be established .").

United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc.

442 F. Supp. 2d 1290 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 28, 2006

Likewise, subsection B is inapposite because no “constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity” is invoked in this matter. 5 U.S.C. § 706(B). United States v. … Rather, the nonmovant must present “specific facts” that establish a genuine issue of triable fact. Id.

State of NJ v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

690 F. Supp. 1061 · Special Court under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act · Jul 21, 1988

the tax is in lieu of local property taxes and the revenue collected is paid to local taxing districts wherein railroad property is located, the exemption of § 217(c) is not applicable; (2) Conrail is not constitutionally immune … The state's delivery to Conrail of its assessment for the following tax year at the rate established was the formal levy of its 1981 tax.

PULA

19 I. & N. Dec. 467 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1987

We are satisfied from a review of the record that the applicant received a fair hearing and that his ex- cludability has been clearly established. … misunderstanding of the nature of the overseas refugee program A'7 Interim Decision #3033 and, most essentially, the criteria a person had to meet to even be considered for the program, much less to qualify