Case law

Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. United States

455 F.2d 556 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 18, 1972

That your interpretation that our clause refers to or establishes a “minimum order” is incorrect. We do not limit or refuse service on account of the size of the order. … We can find no instructions specifically prohibiting qualifying terms or conditions.

F. W. Myers & Co. v. United States

59 Cust. Ct. 427 · United States Customs Court · Oct 31, 1967

The court stated (p. 154) : Having established that “absorbable gelatin sponges” is embraced by the language of paragraph 41, as well as that of paragraph 5, the question which is presented in this case resolves itself to … However, since rules of specificity must give way to a clearly shown contrary legislative intent (National Carloading Corp. v.

Yates v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 18, 2020

“The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). … Yates’s challenge is not clearly stated, the payments that are the focus of Mr. Yates’s claim for $18,558 concern tax years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2018. Compl. E74-E78.

Quinault Allottee Ass'n v. United States

485 F.2d 1391 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 17, 1973

The Ninth Circuit rejected that contention and ruled that the treaty did not immunize the timber proceeds from charges author-ised by the 1920 statute and regulations promulgated thereunder. … The trustee’s duty is to preserve the trust and income therefrom to further the goal of qualifying the Indian to take his place in modern society.

Montiel v. United States

40 Fed. Cl. 67 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 6, 1998

Any new enlistment is clearly a military function which the court should not perform, as requested by plaintiff, on the facts of this case. … On this record, this fact clearly trumps the facts plaintiff seeks to prove at trial. Hence, a trial would be futile.

Von Tersch v. Commissioner

47 T.C. 415 · United States Tax Court · Jan 20, 1967

In our opinion petitioner has failed to establish all of the elements which the Supreme Court of Iowa has declared are essential to establish a common-law marriage, in the year 1962. … Whatever their relationship may have been in 1962, it was clearly not the legal relationship of a husband and wife.

Irving Dulcy v. United States

284 F.2d 687 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 2, 1960

Clearly the Seventh Region was correct in ruling the offered evidence was immaterial and nothing further was presented. … The President’s Committee on Government Employment Policy was established under Executive Order No. 10590.

Application of Alexander M. Wright

343 F.2d 761 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1965

It is not until we approach the end of the brief that we find any attempt to establish patent-ability over Chandler, the primary reference. … The issue is not whether appellant’s apparatus has been “fully met” but rather whether the claimed apparatus has been clearly suggested.

Maxson v. West

12 Vet. App. 453 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 6, 1999

A September 1939 medical examination for reenlistment into the National Guard noted that he had had a colectomy, but did not note any residuals and found that he was physically qualified for further service. … Rajender that is based on the veteran’s claims file and SMRs, and the [two lay statements] clearly and convincingly rebut the presumption of aggravation. R. at 14. This appeal followed.

Thomas M. Nielson v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 56 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 21, 2009

Nielson argues that the circumstances surrounding the extraction of his teeth qualify as "service trauma." … He also contends that the Board was clearly erroneous in finding that the substandard dental care he received in service does not constitute "service trauma."

Timber Engineering Co. v. United States

22 Cust. Ct. 1 · United States Customs Court · Dec 22, 1948

The case has been ably presented and we are favored with the testimony of well-qualified witnesses who displayed a very intelligent knowledge of the subject. … The testimony of other witnesses establishes without contradiction that the articles in their imported condition are ready for immediate use in industry. Plaintiff’s second witness, H.

Second Nature Designs Ltd. v. United States

660 F. Supp. 3d 1352 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 21, 2023

In both cases, the key issue is whether the items qualify as wickerwork. … That case is inapposite here, where Second Nature has not established such a significant difference in size.

Osteopathic Med. Oncology & Hematology, P.C. v. Commissioner

113 T.C. 376 · United States Tax Court · Nov 22, 1999

’s method does not clearly reflect income. … The provision does not establish a dichotomy between use and sale, as suggested by the majority. 5 See, e.g., De Modena v. Kaiser Found.

Michelin Tire Corp. v. United States

82 Cust. Ct. 308 · United States Customs Court · Feb 26, 1979

In the view of the Bush decision this indicated an intention to make the President’s judgment and the underlying facts immune from judicial scrutiny. … When it does have jurisdiction the statutory scheme clearly provides for the trial of all relevant issues without distinction between them.

Greene v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 12, 2020

[chronic immune demyelinating polyradiculopathy,] and autoimmune neuropathies,” id. at 74-75; • ignored the experience of Dr. … Steinman, concluded that a forty-two-day risk interval is “acceptable,” “entirely appropriate,” and “standard for the timing on immunization induced brachial neuritis.”

Stamos v. Commissioner

87 T.C. 1451 · United States Tax Court · Dec 30, 1986

Petitioner also served as one of the directors of the Mark Rothko Foundation (the foundation), which was established by Mark Rothko in 1967. … The Court will not permit a party to a stipulation to qualify, change, or contradict a stipulation in whole or in part, except that it may do so where justice requires. * * * Stipulations that specific evidence will not be

ANSELMO

20 I. & N. Dec. 25 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1989

The EAJA, by permitting the recovery of attorney fees from the United States, constitutes a waiver of the Government's sovereign immunity. … Here, the pertinent regulations governing the immigration judges and the Board remain in force and effect and there is no court order clearly directing either an immigration judge or the Board to consider and adjudicate an

Chas. H. Tompkins Co. v. United States

43 Fed. Cl. 716 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 12, 1999

Thus, plaintiff argues, the mere fact that this information is meant to assist the contracting officer and is not an automatic qualifier, does not make the requirement any less of a definitive responsibility criterion since … In the FBI’s February 5, 1999 letter denying Tompkins’ agency protest, the Chief Contracting Officer stated, “Clearly, the FBI did not consider the information defined in Section 1.24 as ‘definitive responsibility criteria

Budd Co. Railway Division v. United States

507 F. Supp. 997 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 29, 1980

Accordingly, no procedure has been established by statute nor by regulation promulgated thereto providing for discovery of an opposing party prior to or at the time of the investigation. … It is the opinion of this court that the oblique reference to “burden of proof” contained solely in the Senate Committee Report can neither qualify nor minimize the duties or obligation imparted by the explicit language of

Perry v. United States

76 F. Supp. 503 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 1, 1948

The second purpose is to clearly define and indicate to the public the scope of the patent monopoly reserved to the inventor for the life of the patent and to enable those skilled in the art to readily ascertain what they … may manufacture and use without trespassing on the monopoly so established.