Case law

Scinta v. Anderson

193 F.2d 1020 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1952

Appellants, being the junior party, have the burden of establishing priority of invention by a preponderance of evidence. Testimony was taken on behalf of appellants. Appellee took no testimony. … In support of the second ground for dissolution, counsel for appellants took the testimony of a qualified and disinterested expert as to whether or not appellee could make the count.

Shamrock Foods Co. v. United States

92 Fed. Cl. 339 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 2010

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed.Cir.1998) (citing McNutt v. Gen. … The waiver rule in Blue & Gold Fleet clearly states that a challenge to the terms of a solicitation is untimely and waived if filed after the bidding period. 492 F.3d at 1315 .

Fleming-Joffe, Ltd. v. United States

25 Cust. Ct. 56 · United States Customs Court · Aug 1, 1950

Those of the witnesses who were qualified to speak on the point testified that a process know as “stripping down” had to be applied to the imported articles in order to bring them back to the state in which they were prior … Without considering the element of duress under administrative compulsion in the use of the term, however, we think the record made at the trial clearly disproves the correctness of the admission, if such it be.

Lampe v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

42 Fed. Cl. 632 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 17, 1998

A petitioner can qualify for compensation by meeting the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 300aa-13, which reads in relevant part as follows: § 300aa-13. … The petitioners object to the determination of a preexisting condition in that “Rachael Lampe only began having abnormal neurological symptoms (i.e. pedaling movements) after she began receiving her DPT immunizations.”

Adams v. United States

126 Fed. Cl. 645 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 9, 2016

Bash opined that Major Adams “was clearly not fit for duty, particularly to fly an aircraft, when the Air Force separated him.” Id. at 139. … out retirement funds once a disability is found qualifying.”

Pepsiamericas, Inc. v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 41 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 20, 2002

In addition, Senior Management was concerned that continuing the Plan after the Pet spin-off would violate the IRC limits for qualified plans, and thus cause the Plan to lose its qualified status. … Defendant asserts the substance of this transaction clearly reveals that plaintiff is not entitled to a refund. A.

Estate of Shea v. Commissioner

57 T.C. 15 · United States Tax Court · Oct 5, 1971

Stevenson are petitioners who qualified as the executors of the Estate of Helen V. Stevenson on August 30, 1961. At the time the petition herein was filed, Thomas J. … Charters similar to the Metropolitan charter are and were, during the taxable year in issue, traded on organized and established markets, such as the Baltic Exchange in London and the Maritime Exchange in Hew York.

Nie v. United States

124 Fed. Cl. 334 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2015

As interpreted bythe United States Supreme Court, the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity to allow jurisdiction over claims against the United States (1) founded on an express or implied contract with the United States, … Nie's lack of income and current incarceration may qualify him for in forma pauperis status, and although plaintiff submitted the copy of his prison trust fund statement, as discussed above, his complaint is being dismissed

Egan v. United States

158 F. Supp. 377 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 2, 1958

It was later fully established that these witnesses lied. … He was intent upon establishing that he had no mental disorder and that he had been mistreated.

Gahman v. West

12 Vet. App. 406 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 4, 1999

Skinner found the appellant physically qualified for service. In June 1963, Dr. George D. … Set procedures have been established to notify the service *412 members of the actions to be taken by the medical board and their rights in that process. See generally Disability Evaluation Manual.

Jem Transport, Inc. v. United States

120 Fed. Cl. 189 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 2, 2015

In order to establish the existence of a contract with the United States, a plaintiff must establish four elements: “(1) mutuality of intent to contract; (2) lack of ambiguity in offer and acceptance; (3) consideration; … The CDA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, and as such, its requirements must be “strictly construed in favor of the sovereign.” M. Maropakis, 609 F.3d at 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Orff v.

Giant Auto Parts, Ltd. ex rel. Frost v. Commissioner

13 T.C. 307 · United States Tax Court · Sep 15, 1949

Moreover, sections 8061 and 8064, which deal with the effect of a failure to maintain a register of debts and liabilities and the omission of the word “limited” from the partnership name, clearly suspend the immunity granted … In our opinion, the record falls far short of establishing the petitioner’s contention.

World Family Corp. v. Commissioner

81 T.C. 958 · United States Tax Court · Dec 14, 1983

We establish no general rule for future cases in finding 10 percent to be insubstantial. … Such a percentage, especially when specifically designated for only one individual, is clearly unreasonable in contrast to the arrangement in the instant case.

Davis v. Commissioner

38 T.C. 175 · United States Tax Court · Apr 30, 1962

Pacific Mills, 207 F. 2d 177 , affirming 17 T.C. 705 , stated ( 207 F. 2d at 180-181 ): An expense does not have to be absolutely essential in order to qualify as necessary. … The payment with which we are concerned clearly falls into this category.

Biggs v. Commissioner

69 T.C. 905 · United States Tax Court · Mar 13, 1978

The starting point of our analysis is the well established principle that the substance of a transaction, rather than the form in which it is cast, ordinarily determines its tax consequences. E.g., Smith v. … Clearly, the court in Carlton was troubled by the harshness of the result it reached. 385 F.2d at 243 . In a subsequent case, Redwing Carriers, Inc. v.

CSX Corp. v. Commissioner

89 T.C. 134 · United States Tax Court · Jul 23, 1987

The allowance for depreciation of qualified property to which the taxpayer elects to apply this section shall be determined in accordance with this section. … The Texas Midland report clearly does not establish, as respondent contends, that the figures for interest and taxes used by the ICC were theoretical and therefore not properly chargeable to the capital account. [ 75 T.C.

HUANG

19 I. & N. Dec. 749 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1988

In my estimation, the immigration judge clearly found that the respondents had never established a permanent residence in the United States. … We are thus faced with a situation in which these applicants wish to be considered lawful permanent residents who are return- ing from "temporary" visits abroad under circtanstances which clearly establish that no permanent

Gallo v. United States

76 Fed. Cl. 593 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 29, 2007

The Tucker Act concurrently “waives the Government’s sovereign immunity for those actions.” Id. … Clearly, these regulations work in conjunction with one another.

Kennedy v. United States

162 Ct. Cl. 752 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 12, 1963

In the Campbell case recovery was allowed on the basis of facts and circumstances which are clearly distinguishable from the situation which exists in the instant case. B. … On November 10, 1943, plaintiff was examined and found physically qualified for promotion in accordance with Al Nav 166-43, which states, in part: Special service Reserve officers may be appointed, if found physically qualified

Filtration Development Co., LLC v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 418 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 17, 2004

As was discussed above, plaintiff has not established through clear and convincing evidence likelihood of success on the merits. … It is plaintiffs burden to clearly and convincingly demonstrate its entitlement to a preliminary injunction, which it has not done.