Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.97s
25 Cl. Ct. 268 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 11, 1992
For the reasons expressed, infra, and notwithstanding plaintiff’s position regarding remand, we are constrained to conclude that, given the totality of the overall circumstances, such is clearly warranted. … Accordingly, we find that this court clearly has the power to direct the Board to hold a hearing upon remand when the court deems such a hearing, as here, to be “proper and just” pursuant to the requirements of § 1491. 12
Cited 4 timesPublished14 I. & N. Dec. 475 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1973
In order to qualify for admission as a returning resident alien as specifically defined in the statute, i6 was necessary that (1) the applicant have the status of a lawfully admitted immigrant for permanent residence and … It has been established that the respondent is not a lawful permanent resident alien.
Reversed by Ponciano Maldonado-Sandoval v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 518 F.2d 278 (1975)Cited 3 timesPublishedPatton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 11, 2021
Morgan believed that although there is no evidence in the record clearly supporting his preferred diagnosis, this is only because petitioner did not receive the tests necessary to collect such evidence. (Id. at 1-2.) … In these cases, the patient’s immune system will target itself in addition to the vaccine antigens and create an immune response that may cause various neurological disorders. (Ex. 21, p. 5.) Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAcme Breweries v. Commissioner
14 T.C. 1034 · United States Tax Court · May 31, 1950
leveled off to 12.2 gallons in 1938 and 12.5 gallons in 1939, and the California average per capita consumption reached a peak of 12.4 gallons in 1937 and leveled off to 11.3 gallons in 1938 and 11.4 gallons in 1939, thus clearly … (a) General Rule. — In any case in -which the taxpayer establishes that the tax computed under this subchapter (without the benefit of this section) results in an excessive and discriminatory tax and establishes what would
Cited 0 timesPublished132 T.C. 196 · United States Tax Court · Apr 13, 2009
Petitioner’s requests for relief under section 6015(b) and (c) were not timely, and therefore she does not qualify for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(b)(1)(E) and (c)(3)(B). … (a) In General. — The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s delegate shall, as soon as practicable, but not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, establish procedures to clearly alert married
Reversed on other grounds by Denise Mannella v. Commissioner IRS, 631 F.3d 115 (2011)Cited 11 timesPublishedDepartment of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Jul 19, 1978
The word clearly was not designed to create an exemption for an individual who was involved but “ may have not bothered to dig into the substance of the case.” Id. … This provision clearly barred A for as long as it applied, because the case was apparently assigned to him when he was in the U .S. A ttorney’s O ffice.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOmran Holding Group v. United States
128 Fed. Cl. 273 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 14, 2016
Rather, all a protester must establish to demonstrate prejudice is that it has a substantial chance of receiving the contract—that it is a qualified bidder and could compete for the contract.”) … Omran did not mention this situation in its assertion of standing and it is clearly inapplicable under the facts of this case. C.
Cited 5 timesPublishedUnited States v. Western Commercial Co.
20 C.C.P.A. 239 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1932
However, no reasons were assigned for such belief, nor *245 is there any evidence of record to indicate, that he was qualified to express an opinion on the subject having any probative force. … We are of opinion, therefore, that the issues in this case are clearly distinguishable from those in the Hudson Forwarding & Shipping Co. case, supra, and that they are controlled by our decision in the case of United States
Cited 0 timesPublishedScience Applications International Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 7, 2022
immunity. … The party must make its initial damages disclosure “within 14 days after the Early Meeting of Counsel,” unless the court establishes a different deadline. Rule 26(a)(1)(C).
Cited 0 timesPublished120 Fed. Cl. 85 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 29, 2015
Reviewing the evidence submitted by Colonel O’Brien, the BCNR found that the evidence was insufficient to establish material error or injustice. … Accordingly, when a separation or retirement date has been established, every effort must be made to effect the servicemember’s discharge on that date.
Cited 4 timesPublishedC.R. Pittman Construction Co. v. United States
92 Fed. Cl. 20 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 10, 2010
Therefore, only the pumping stations qualify as “permanent work” under its ordinary meaning. … Even though the Court has already held that the ordinary meaning of “part of the permanent work” clearly establishes responsibility on the part of the Plaintiff, the Court will nevertheless address the four other contract
Cited 3 timesPublishedEstate of James E. Caan, Jacaan Administrative Trust, Scott Caan, Trustee, Special Administrator
United States Tax Court · Nov 14, 2023
The settlor executes a written trust instrument that meets the section 408(a) requirements and thereby establishes a trust IRA. … Caan clearly did not provide UBS with the P&A Interest’s 2014 yearend fair market value by January 15, 2015, because in March 2015 UBS sent a letter to the P&A Fund requesting that value.
Cited 0 timesPublished215 F.2d 275 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 15, 1954
Wagner are eminently qualified chemists of long experience, the former being Director of Research at the Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation and the latter being a consulting chemist of Phillips Petroleum Company. … In our opinion, an earlier date of conception has not been established.
Cited 2 timesPublishedChrysler Corp. v. United States
19 Ct. Int'l Trade 353 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 14, 1995
Furthermore, the holding of the Federal Circuit in General Motors renders nondeterminative the factual distinctions established by plaintiff. … General Motors, 976 F.2d at 720 , directs that to qualify for duty-free treatment, the entire advancement by the coating operations is to be considered, not simply the top coats.
Cited 0 timesPublished3 B.T.A. 348 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 16, 1926
The evidence in support of the facts upon which the taxpayer relies to establish its first contention is clear and convincing. … Properly qualified experts on real estate and other asset values testified as to the fair market values of the properties acquired by purchase and gift at February 1, 1919.
Cited 5 timesPublishedG4s Technology LLC v. United States
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.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLomago v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 15, 2025
McGeary argued that the authors clearly did not believe mimics lead to autoimmune disease, as proposed by Dr. Cromwell. Resp’t’s Ex. G at 2. Dr. … To establish entitlement to compensation under the Program, a petitioner is required to establish each of the three prongs of Althen by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDanville Plywood Corp. v. United States
16 Cl. Ct. 584 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 31, 1989
The foregoing provision requires the taxpayer to clearly and objectively establish that: (i) such expenditure occurred in a clear business setting directly in furtherance of the taxpayer’s business; and (ii) the recipient … We find that these circumstances clearly prevent a finding of the existence of a “clear business setting,” and plaintiff has failed to clearly establish to the contrary.
Cited 7 timesPublished65 T.C. 346 · United States Tax Court · Nov 18, 1975
were designated executrices in the final will lodged with that court, but no estate was opened and no letters testamentary or of administration were granted with respect to decedent in that court, and neither daughter ever qualified … Co., 22 B.T.A. 646, 647 (1931), petitioners must establish, since Edward J. Fehrs was deceased when the petition was filed, that the petition was filed by a fiduciary entitled to institute a case on his behalf.
Cited 83 timesPublishedArmed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Aug 12, 2014
She listed seven items "that were missing or not clearly stated." … Please note that the vendor for Lot 1, Plymouth, is not immune to having tubes burst.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna