Case law

Pine Products Corp. v. United States

34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,495 · United States Court of Claims · May 26, 1988

The statute established a three-tiered payment schedule. … Since plaintiff’s potential contract losses exceeded its net worth, it qualified for the minimum buy-out charge of $10 per MBF. 16 U.S.C. § 618 (a)(3)(A)(i).

Torti v. United States

135 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

Altieri v. United States

63 Cust. Ct. 347 · United States Customs Court · Nov 10, 1969

Bending Capability The record clearly establishes that electrical conduit, such as exhibit 2, is sufficiently ductile so that it may be bent without changing its inside diameter. … Indeed, defendant’s trade and professional witnesses, although well qualified to testify concerning the merchandise in issue, contradicted one another on material points; and their testi *354 mony appears to substantiate,

Bot v. Comm'r

118 T.C. 138 · United States Tax Court · Feb 15, 2002

Respondent argues that petitioners’ involvement with MCP is more than sufficient to qualify as a trade or business. … Petitioners do not contend that the value-added payments qualify for this exclusion.

Estate of Charania v. Comm'r

133 T.C. 122 · United States Tax Court · Sep 14, 2009

De Nicols clearly recognizes an implied contract of spouses upon marriage, and there has been no intervening decision to the contrary. Respondent contends that “since Decedent and Mrs. … practical steps required to form a qualified domestic trust.

Clifton 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).

Haddad v. United States

United 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.”

Suntec Industries Co. v. United States

951 F. Supp. 2d 1341 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 6, 2013

Commerce advised: All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in the administrative reviews involving [nonmarket economy] countries must complete, as appropriate, either … Waivers of sovereign immunity are strictly construed, and any ambiguities must be resolved in favor of immunity. See Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 685 (1983); see also United States v.

Import Wholesalers Corp. v. United States

368 F.2d 577 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 10, 1966

Here, the plaintiff’s claim requested “return” of its “rightful property” and asserted clearly that it was not the first purchaser in the United States of the imported automobiles, and that it was therefore not liable for … Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 661-663 , 65 S.Ct. 870 , 89 L.Ed. 1252 (1945), involving constitutional immunity of imports from state taxation, the Ohio Supreme Court had ruled that petitioner was subject to a state ad valorem tax

Tampa 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

Dunnagan v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 557 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 28, 1992

On October 29, 1951, appellant underwent a separation examination and was found “physically qualified for release from active duty.” R. at 20. … Allen’s report sufficient to establish service connection for deviated nasal septum and continued to deny service connection. R. at 134.

Application of Edgar G. Heyl

379 F.2d 1018 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 5, 1967

said: * * * the correct procedure for double patenting cases is to analyze the claims to determine the inventions defined therein, and then decide whether such inventions, as claimed, are patentably distinct and therefore qualified … The details of his argument, however, seem to focus almost solely on establishing the separateness of the inventions. And this, of course, is not enough.

Fauvergue v. United States

86 Fed. Cl. 82 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 24, 2009

United States, again asserting plaintiffs had not established subject matter jurisdiction. Sr. … There are two steps to evaluate adequacy of representation; first, the court must consider whether the proposed class counsel is “qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation.”

Lucky Stores v. Commissioner

107 T.C. 1 · United States Tax Court · Aug 6, 1996

Plans that are not established or maintained pursuant to collective bargaining agreements are herein for convenience referred to as multiple employer plans. … Second, respondent asserts that petitioner’s “new method”, i.e., that of deducting grace period contributions in the current taxable year, fails to clearly reflect income under section 446(b).

United Enterprise & Associates v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 21, 2006

Tech, he clearly cannot and he has no other company in mind to assist him other than G.S. Tech. AR at 464. E. … Instead, defendant merely argues that it “clearly would be prejudiced if UEA is granted relief in this ease.”

J.S. Stone, Inc. v. United States

297 F. Supp. 2d 1333 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 31, 2003

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is precluded from challenging the results of the antidumping determination because, although it qualified as an interested party, it did not participate in the administrative proceedings. … Thus, Congress clearly envisioned “occasions when an aspect of an antidumping duty determination might fall within the court’s jurisdiction under section 1581(i).” Royal Business Machs., Inc. v.

Ellison v. Commissioner

55 T.C. 142 · United States Tax Court · Oct 27, 1970

Get at least two new names (qualified) from every interview. PROSPECT ALL THE TIME. … If the grantee met the employment requirement, all the other requirements were clearly satisfied.

Duke v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 25, 2024

The Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity for lawsuits seeking tax refunds, but only when the plaintiff satisfies the tax code’s prerequisites. United States v. … Cl. 287, 290-91 (2005) (finding that a pro se taxpayer’s letters to the IRS qualified as an informal refund request because the written correspondence specified the tax years at issue, re- quested a refund, and notified

Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc. v. Commissioner

17 T.C. 566 · United States Tax Court · Sep 28, 1951

The record establishes that Kerrigan was petitioner’s sole executive. He was responsible for the entire management of the business. … It also appears that during the taxable years involved Regina Kerrigan was a minor and not qualified to act as a director.

L-O-G

21 I. & N. Dec. 413 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1996

That clearly was a remedial intent. … Further, the majority fails to identify which, if any, of the qualifying per- sons have made a prima facie showing of extreme hardship.