Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.33s
31 Fed. Cl. 598 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 27, 1994
Congress delegated broad authority to the Commissioner of the IRS to establish rules for filing consolidated returns. Code § 1502. … See, e.g., Treas.Reg. § 1.1502-21 (establishing method for computing consolidated net operating loss deduction).
Cited 12 timesPublishedThe United States v. Southern Ute Tribe or Band of Indians
423 F.2d 346 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 20, 1970
Defendant in this instance has clearly not done all it might have done to clear up any uncertainty there may be about the intent of the parties to the stipulation. … terms of the agreement, do what it pleased with the lands and their proceeds, giving the Indians the privilege of having their legal rights determined only at long intervals * * * when the sovereign deigned to waive its immunity
Reversed on other grounds by United States v. Southern Ute Tribe or Band of Indians, 402 U.S. 159 (1971)Cited 11 timesPublished131 Fed. Cl. 333 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2017
The Tucker Act serves as a waiver of sovereign immunity and a jurisdictional grant, but it does not create a substantive cause of action. Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. … Rather, the record clearly indicates that Mr. McCord had radiculopathy symptoms at least as far back as July 17, 2010, almost two years prior to his discharge. See id. Tab 23 at 424.
Cited 5 timesPublished55 T.C. 746 · United States Tax Court · Feb 10, 1971
Petitioners established separate trusts for each of these children who were in being during the years in issue. … the phrases “as may be necessary” and “not so needed” impose “a substantial obstacle to the exercise of the trustee’s discretionary power” because “where a trustee’s power is exercisable only in the event of need (as so clearly
Cited 8 timesPublished124 Fed. Cl. 209 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 24, 2015
Taxpayers’ qualified investment for computing investment tax credit is the amount at risk set forth in paragraph #4. 6. … In the year at issue, the investment credit was equal to 10% of the qualified investment.13 Thus, plaintiffs assert that they were entitled to a credit of $10,000, which is 10% of their $100,000 qualified investment and amount
Cited 7 timesPublishedKristopher Kelly v. Tennessee Valley Authority
Merit Systems Protection Board · Jan 5, 2024
The administrative judge found that the agency offered no evidence to establish that the Custodian (Trainee) position to which it reassigned the appellant was the vacant position for which the appellant was qualified and … Among other things, the agency must (1) clearly set forth the gross amount due to the appellant and show how that amount was determined; (2) clearly set forth the amount and reason for all deductions, reductions, and offsets
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 28, 2025
The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the federal government to provide jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims for a claim founded on an express or implied contract with the United States, for a refund from … The plaintiff seeks to qualify to receive federal grants; he cannot do so due to a regulatory restriction alleged to be illegal.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedTampa Bay Fisheries, Inc. v. United States
825 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 20, 2012
Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the $22,000 payment establish no more than that Plaintiffs lent their “support” to parties who intended in the future to become petitioners. … the Byrd Amendment does not fail the equal protection review applicable to statutes that disadvantage protected speech.”); id. at 1360 (“Because it serves a substantial government interest, the Byrd Amendment is also clearly
Cited 2 timesPublished127 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 4, 2016
Rail Road r[an],” a qualification clearly indicating that the right-of-way was intended for rail use alone. Def.’s Ex. Y at 7. … Defendant’s arguments are contrary to established binding precedent.
Cited 21 timesPublished26 I. & N. Dec. 623 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2015
We review findings of fact to determine whether they are “clearly erroneous.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i); 1003.106(c) (2015). … The respondent has not established that such a duty precluded him from presenting a fair defense against the charges.
Cited 1 timesPublished85 Fed. Cl. 248 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 2009
The IRC establishes a “scheme [that] provides that a claim for a refund must be filed with the [IRS] before suit can be brought, and establishes strict timeframes for filing such a claim.” … Section 7422(a), which waives the federal government’s sovereign immunity from tax refund suits, Chi. Milwaukee Corp. v.
Cited 31 timesPublishedCentral Vermont Railway Co. v. United States
10 Ct. Cust. 31 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1920
But it is not sufficient for the importer to establish that the collector’s classification is wrong. … This is clearly demonstrated when the following provisions of the-respective acts are considered.
Cited 8 timesPublishedBurlington Northern Inc. v. United States
676 F.2d 566 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 10, 1982
As previously mentioned, plaintiffs assets are virtually immune to physical decay; that is, they are largely unaffected by the mere passage of time. … Such evidence as presented herein is clearly unsatisfactory to establish that the Iowa curve selected to project an historical data base will produce a realistic forecast of the asset’s retirement pattern.
Cited 12 timesPublishedS & E Contractors, Inc. v. The United States
433 F.2d 1373 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 30, 1970
Before tackling these provocative questions, we think it appropriate to define clearly the perimeters of our analysis. … The interests of the contractors are clearly and undoubtedly involved. But likewise involved are the interests of the Government.
Reversed by Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1 (1971)Cited 8 timesPublished94 Fed. Cl. 277 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2010
On June 5, 1996, the BLM conducted a field examination of Parcel B to determine whether plaintiff had made qualifying use of the land. … use, including “notarized witness statements which clearly support your use and occupancy of the land, stating the date you started using the land and the type of use ... and any additional information that might support
Cited 8 timesPublished135 Ct. Cl. 214 · United States Court of Claims · May 1, 1956
He was then found physically qualified for limited military service only by reason of external hemorrhoids. Plaintiff’s Army service consisted of a total of 133 days, 85 days of which were spent in the hospital. … Plaintiff’s claim was reconsidered by the Board of Veterans Appeals for the fourth time on January 18,1951, and the Board in its decision concluded “that the evidence clearly and unmistabably establishes that rheumatoid state
Cited 4 timesPublishedClifton Arline v. Denis McDonough
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 1, 2021
Arline's employment did not qualify as "in a protected environment" given his employment history. R. at 21. … We review the Board's credibility determination and other factual findings under the "clearly erroneous" standard. Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 532, 534 (1993) (en banc).
Cited 0 timesPublished29 I. & N. Dec. 463 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Feb 26, 2026
Whether the respondent qualifies for a waiver under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H), is a legal issue that we review de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). … At the same time, the Immigration Judge did not clearly err in finding that the respondent entered into a fraudulent marriage with his ex-wife Emma and adjusted status as a result of that marriage.
Cited 3 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 2021
Plaintiff further argues the government waived sovereign immunity in this case because “the Federal Circuit [] completely up-ended [and expanded] the careful waiver of sovereign immunity that Zoltek and Decca were based on … ” by holding “all agencies entering into any contracts immunize all conduct of government contractors without any reference to authorization or consent.”
Cited 0 timesPublished181 Ct. Cl. 790 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1967
Those in CWO W-4 not so qualified were dropped to head the next grade, CWO W-3. … To establish a sequence on the promotion list within the grades of W-4, W-3, and W-2, Department of the Army Special Order, SO-243, dated December 1, 1954, established, for the officers listed thereon, a D/R of November 1
Cited 1 timesPublished
Ask Donna