Case law

Hoffman v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 106 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 2012

Otherwise, the PEB would have found him to be "Physically Qualified.” … By contrast, the Navy’s conclusion that the illness was not duty-related is clearly indicated by the decision, in March 2006, to terminate Colonel Hoffman’s MEB processing. AR 180-81.

Aboussie v. Commissioner

60 T.C. 549 · United States Tax Court · Jul 10, 1973

In reversing the District Court decision, the Fifth Circuit stated that “It now has been established that in connection with the Buyers’ purchase of the Seller’s stock there was a tripartite agreement, consisting of the formal … First, as to petitioner’s contention that the agreements were between the corporation and himself, the written agreement dated October 13, 1966 (and quoted above), clearly shows otherwise.

Purepac Corp. v. United States

10 Cust. Ct. 53 · United States Customs Court · Jan 13, 1943

Storey, whose education and experience in the petroleum field made him eminently qualified to testify on the subject, stated that he anatyzed a sample of the oil in question and found it satisfactory for medicinal oil use … establishes that oil such as that in question is, and was at and prior to the passage of the revenue act, chiefly, if not exclusively, used for the purpose of making medicinal oil.

Century Circuit v. Commissioner

31 B.T.A. 764 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Nov 28, 1934

The prohibition is not qualified by the time of the declaration or payment of dividends; it takes no account of whether they were received before or after affiliation. … The fact that certain payments are designated transportation or installation cost does not establish error in respondent’s requiring them to be capitalized.

Continental Illinois Corp. v. Commissioner

94 T.C. 165 · United States Tax Court · Feb 28, 1990

These elements, however, fall far short of establishing a reasonable prospect of recovery on the part of petitioner for its expropriation claims. … There are several factors that support this conclusion: (a) Clearly, petitioner had no right of setoff against Iranian deposits in the United States as long as the freeze order remained in effect.

Edward F. O'HARE v. UNITED STATES

288 F.2d 705 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1961

case of any such person who, in order to perform such training and service, has left or leaves a position, other than a temporary position, in the employ of any employer and who (1) receives such certificate, (2) is still qualified … Thus it can be seen that since plaintiff returned to a position higher in grade his rights under that Act were clearly not violated.

United States v. Simon Saw & Steel Co.

51 C.C.P.A. 33 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964

Those cases established the rule of construction giving controlling force and effect to a “use” provision. * * * * * # * The application of the cases above cited to the facts of the case at bar leads clearly to the conclusion … In paragraph 340 only one article is capable of qualifying as a circular saw: it must be an article circular in shape, with teeth on the periphery.

Northport Shores v. Commissioner

31 B.T.A. 1013 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 15, 1935

Gallagher and Ward, at least, were qualified in their respective fields. … and convincingly establishing those values at that date to have been $500,000 for the entire property and $250,000 for the undivided one-half interest therein.

Brewer v. West

11 Vet. App. 228 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 29, 1998

Background The appellant had qualifying service in the U.S. Army from August 1986 to June 1989. R. at 83. … immunity due to unique reliance considerations).

Almar Industries, Inc. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,621 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1989

These precedents clearly indicate that facts and circumstances independent of a basic agreement itself, may form an enforceable contract or transform the basic agreement into a binding obligation. … Nor has plaintiff established that the government violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing under an implied-in-fact contract.

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma v. United States

103 Fed. Cl. 210 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 2, 2011

Jurisdiction Litigation against the United States requires an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity. “The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. … The Arthur Anderson report clearly and admittedly does not meet these requirements.”

Ford v. United States

69 F. Supp. 332 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 3, 1947

The force making the test included pilots qualified according to regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Administration. The plaintiff possessed such qualifications. He was made director of the new air training units. … A rating generally similar to that of a liaison pilot will be established for pilots.

Tower v. United States

42 Cust. Ct. 25 · United States Customs Court · Jan 15, 1959

This last treatment clearly serves no other purpose than to remove impurities. … It is recognized that “the com *33 mercial designation of an article among traders and importers, where such designation is clearly established, fixes its character for the purpose of the tariff laws.” (Cadwalader v.

Lockheed Aircraft Corporation v. The United States

426 F.2d 322 · United States Court of Claims · May 15, 1970

This would have to be qualified by any special factors that would preclude universal allocation. … California itself might as a matter of policy choose to avoid any possible clash of sovereignties by not taxing government work, but it cannot simply be assumed that is the policy, or if it is the policy, that it would extend immunity

Liu v. United States

93 Fed. Cl. 184 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 11, 2010

This requirement is clearly part of the language of the presumption stated in Charlson. … It can only be destroyed or overcome by convincing and uneontradicted evidence to the contrary which clearly and distinctly establishes a fact so that reasonable minds can draw but one inference.” Id. at 444.

MN Apparel LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · May 14, 2021

House Mark or Trade Name on Applicant’s Specimens First, the Examining Attorney argues that “[a]pplicant has clearly combined two marks to create a new mark”9 because Applicant’s specimen displays a combination of … As the Court pointed out in examining whether the webpage specimens in Siny qualified as a display associated with the goods, “[m]ere advertising is not enough to qualify as such a display.”

Blake-Moffitt & Towne, Inc. v. United States

27 Cust. Ct. 485 · United States Customs Court · Nov 27, 1951

It appeared that if a further supply became available because of either increased production or the dropping out of one of the group, other distributors might be added, but it clearly appears that even in such a situation … But it will be observed that the statute does not thus establish the wholesale price.

Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. United States

161 Ct. Cl. 455 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 5, 1963

“As in the past, all advertising will clearly specify that financing must be obtained from private sources.” … The validity of this provision is not in question, the principle having long since become established that in the event of default by a bidder, his bid deposit may be retained by the other party as an agreed amount for liquidated

RBW, INC. v. United States

632 F. Supp. 13 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 13, 1986

Both of .these contentions depend upon the premise that the merchandise qualifies as puzzles within the meaning of item 735.20. … Defendant asserts that item 735.-20 clearly and unambiguously provides for puzzles, without limitation to any particular type of puzzles.

Yancey v. Commissioner

72 T.C. 37 · United States Tax Court · Apr 4, 1979

See sec. 214. 2 Section 152(a) provides that a child of the taxpayer qualifies as his dependent, for the purpose of the dependency exemption allowed by section 151, if more than half of the child’s support. during the taxable … The other exception provides that if the noncustodial parent provided at least $1,200 in support and the custodial parent does not clearly establish that he provided more support, the noncustodial parent shall be treated