Case law

Glendale Federal Bank, FSB v. United States

39 Fed. Cl. 422 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 10, 1997

Hearsay may not be used for cross-examination unless it qualifies under an exception to the hearsay rule or is permitted by FRE 703 because it was relied upon by a testifying expert. … FRE 703. *426 Applying these rules to the instant case, the deposition testimony of Professor Ruback may be used to cross-examine Professor Fischel only to the extent that Plaintiff can establish that the deposition testimony

Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. United States

2007 CIT 47 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 28, 2007

warranty repair cost, (17) qualifying warranty overhead cost, (18) total qualifying warranty cost. … This independent confirmation is necessary to “establish that the defects did indeed exist at the time of importation.” Id. C.

Mendez v. United States

132 Fed. Cl. 55 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 3, 2017

A plaintiff seeking to establish jurisdiction in this court under the Tucker Act must show that such claim accrued within six years of the date upon which the action was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (2012); John R. … In that communication, AUSA Gonzalez clearly related to Mendez’s attorney the position that no agreement existed other than a “promise” to maintain Mendez’s name in confidence for as long as possible.

Lukos Vatc Jv LLC v. United States

116 Fed. Cl. 108 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 12, 2014

These arguments are joined by both the Government and ITA, but ITA adds a further assertion that LVJV has failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. … The broad “in connection with” language of the Tucker Act clearly encompasses the agency actions here, both in that SOCOM requested confirmation of small business status from the SBA specifically for purposes of awarding

Sanganza v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2023

The Tucker Act serves as a waiver of sovereign immunity for “certain claims for monetary relief against the United States,” but it does not create a right to relief itself. Estes Express Lines v. … Cir. 2007) (holding that plaintiff’s tort claims, including negligence, “are clearly outside the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims”).

STULTZ

15 I. & N. Dec. 362 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1975

The petitioner believes that the beneficiary qualifies as her step- child 1, and hence as her child, under section 101(b)(1) of the Act. This is the question that must be resolved. … In his denial of the petition the district director stated that because the beneficiary was illegitimate, she could not qualify as the petitioner's child.

Country Music Association, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Oct 25, 2011

Considered in the context of the record as a whole in this case, the examining attorney's evidence of third-party use of the phrase "Country Music Association" does not clearly establish genericness. … One hundred persons were deemed qualified and interviewed after completion of the screening process.

Authority of Education Department Administrative Law Judges in Conducting Hearings

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Jan 12, 1990

In that context, the Court held that an administrative law judge is “functionally comparable” to an Article III judge, who enjoys absolute immunity. … The explanatory notes accom ­ panying the proposed regulations clearly indicate that the ALJ is required to stay the proceedings if requested by both parties. See 53 Fed. Reg. 48,866 (1988).

KAMEN SOAP PRODUCTS COMPANY v. United States

124 F. Supp. 608 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1954

Kamen, no covering or qualifying letter from plaintiff was read in connection with plaintiff’s bid. Mr. … This is one of the conditions on which the Government gives its consent to be sued and waives its otherwise sovereign immunity.

Oak Forest, Inc. v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 90 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 26, 1991

The United States has not waived sovereign immunity for such a claim, however. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h) (1988); United States v. Drinkwater, 434 F.Supp. 457, 460 (E.D.Va.1977). … Clearly, plaintiffs cannot recover for a taking as of November 15, 1988 unless they establish some property interest, either in the disputed strip between the base and the subdivision or in the access road.

American National Bank & Trust Co. v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,134 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 9, 1991

Without the proper authority, DLA’s payments to plaintiff were contrary to the law and clearly erroneous. … Established law clearly provides that the Government may recover funds which its agents have wrongfully, erroneously, or illegally paid. No statute is necessary to authorize the Government to sue in such a case.

Aurelia v. Mayang

8 Vet. App. 260 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 11, 1995

Mayang, who had qualified service. On the oath and certificate of enlistment, the veteran listed the appellant as his sister and someone to be notified in case of an emergency. … The RO found that the appellant had failed to establish service connection for the cause of death and basic eligibility for benefits.

Westfed Holdings, Inc. v. United States

55 Fed. Cl. 544 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 17, 2003

The evidence presented at trial clearly establishes that Westfed acquired Old Western in reliance on the contract between the parties. … The reasonable certainty test for lost profits in this circuit is that “ ‘[i]f a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery,’ and the court’s duty

Decker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 5, 2021

I find that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that because of her susceptibility to an autoimmune event, the immune response triggered by HAV resulted in molecular mimicry, thereby causing her … Pike used a bee sting analogy to illustrate how an appropriate temporal relationship between acute exposure to an allergen and an immune reaction can establish causality.

McColley v. West

13 Vet. App. 553 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 21, 2000

ANALYSIS Generally, a Board determination of the proper effective date is a finding of fact, which the Court reviews under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. See Hanson v. … The effective date for payment due to a claimant based on dependency shall be the latest of: (1) the "date of claim"; (2) the date dependency arises; (3) the effective date of the qualifying disability, so long as evidence

P

19 I. & N. Dec. 823 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1988

P11986). (2) A nonimmigrant alien whose unlawful status is known to the United States Gov- ernment as of January 1, 1982, is eligible for temporary resident status under sec- tion 245A of the Act if otherwise qualified … Counsel further main- tains that the application for legalization should be approved not- withstanding the provisions of section 212(a)(19) of the Act since the waiver would clearly be in the public interest.

Laurette v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 2022

Moreover, the Act clearly anticipates the fact that onset questions often require consideration of evidence that temporally falls outside the relevant time period. … Thus, all elements of a Table SIRVA claim have been preponderantly established.

Ogunniyi v. United States

124 Fed. Cl. 525 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 10, 2015

Co., 672F.3d at 1056 ("A plaintiff lacking privity of contract can nonetheless sue for damages under that contract if it qualifies as an intended third-party beneficiary.); {lgile Cntv.. Cal. v. … Cl. 467,471 (2004) ("The'in lieu of language in section 609(a) clearly indicates that the contractor has a choice of forums but does not allow the conkactor to pursue its claims before both forums."

Petty v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 23, 2020

“received his 2 month immunizations and developed diarrhea that lasted for 6 months.” Pet. Ex. 3 at 1; see Pet’r’s Mot. at 7, 12. … But by the time L.P. received his vaccinations, he already had a well-established medical history of gastrointestinal problems.

Riley & Ephriam Construction Co. v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 405 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 29, 2004

As a formal matter, the Plaintiff has the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573 , 1583 (Fed.Cir.1993). … While we suspect that not all fax machines include an electronic message, the particular fax machine used in this case clearly qualifies; the CO stated in his declaration that it had indicated a successful transmission.