Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersFS

10,000+ results

0.35s

  • American Bronze Corp. v. Commissioner

    64 T.C. 1111 · United States Tax Court · Sep 30, 1975

    Corp., 48 T.C. 483 , affd. 393 F.2d 269 (3d Cir. 1968), were clearly satisfied. Respondent concedes, however, that there was no liquidation, formal or de facto, of Cleveland Brass prior to the merger. … This distinction does not, however, suffice to establish respondent’s theory.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Chinea v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 26, 2019

    Id. at 254 (“I could go before, but I’ll clearly say at Thanksgiving . . . .”). At hearing, Dr. … Wanschitz concluded that damaging humoral immune responses (meaning largely antibody-mediated adaptive immune responses) predominated in the “early” stages of GBS (i.e., after recognized onset), whereas cellular immune response

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Rueda-Rojas v. United States

    98 Fed. Cl. 671 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 23, 2011

    Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. … The court should not re-transfer cases except for in “exceptional circumstances,” where the initial transfer decision was “clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Id.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Blauvelt v. Commissioner

    4 T.C. 10 · United States Tax Court · Sep 21, 1944

    There is no evidence here to establish the time petitioners acquired their stock, but the respondent assumes the purchase to have been after March 1, 1913, and, since petitioners merely argue that the time of acquisition … Under the provisions of section 22 (e), section 115 (b) qualifies the general term “gains” in section 22 (a).

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Information Sciences Corp. v. United States

    85 Fed. Cl. 195 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 30, 2008

    The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls upon the plaintiff. See FW/ PBS, Inc. v. … As a matter of law, the Tucker Act recognizes only waiver of sovereign immunity for a “violation of statute or regulation,” not FAR guidelines. Id. at 10-11.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Parker v. Frilette

    462 F.2d 544 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1972

    However, the facts in this case are that zeolitie material may be effective in promoting selective organic chemical reactions either with or without the presence therein of an added catalyst, and Frilette’s specification clearly … I do not believe that it can seriously be argued that the present situation qualifies for the first category, and I do not believe that Frilette has laid the proper foundation for use to hold that it qualifies for the second

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Stephen B. LeMaster v. Department of Veterans Affairs

    2016 MSPB 25 · Merit Systems Protection Board · Jul 5, 2016

    Such reasons, though clearly preappointment, were not mentioned in the agency’s termination notice and so we have not considered them. Id. at 24-25; see Pope v. … Department of the Navy, 114 M.S.P.R. 52, ¶ 8 (2010), the Board found that, even assuming that a probationer’s postappointment failure to qualify for a Government credit card was attributable to his preappointment

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Trans-Oceanic Fisheries, Inc. v. United States

    33 Cust. Ct. 420 · United States Customs Court · Nov 10, 1954

    The testimony of plaintiff’s witness to the effect that the “nape bone,” here in controversy, is a part of the head of the fish was subsequently qualified by him on cross-examination. … Quite clearly plaintiff failed to establish the proposition set forth by its counsel at the opening of the case, i. e., that the nape portion of the fish which was removed was part of the head.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Zacharski v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2025

    Lau claimed, thus established that anti-contactin-1 autoantibodies are one of the multiple immune antibodies that can cause chronic, axon-specific neuropathies. Tr. at 98. … As I noted earlier in my analysis, Petitioner could not clearly identify when Ms.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Co. v. United States

    42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,202 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 28, 1997

    In order to establish that government action was arbitrary and capricious, a disappointed bidder need not prove that each of the four Keco factors is present. Prineville Sawmill Co. v. … (vii) For other reasons cancellation is clearly in the Government’s interest.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Ammex, Inc. v. United States

    52 Fed. Cl. 303 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 10, 2002

    In short, Am-mex has not offered any facts or other evidence that it participated in any activities that would qualify it as a “wholesale distributor” within the meaning of the statute. … Here, clearly, there is a legally protected interest, ie., an injury in fact.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Radke v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 5, 2025

    Efthimiou has preponderantly established “how an innate immune response from the Prevnar 13 vaccination can cause the dysregulation of immune cells already present [an] individual.” Id. at 26. … Efthimiou preponderantly established a medically acceptable timeframe that involves the vaccine initiating a fast and non-specific immune response resulting in the development of PMR. Br. at 35.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Weis v. Commissioner

    30 B.T.A. 478 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 26, 1934

    On the other hand, the evidence establishes the following additional, pertinent facts: (1) Petitioner clearly had no desire from personal choice to change his domicile from Louisiana to Illinois, and reluctantly took up his … residence in Chicago was for an indefinite duration only in the sense that the exact date of his return to New Orleans to reside could not be definitely forecast; (2) his principal business interests were in Louisiana; (3) he qualified

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Browning v. Commissioner

    109 T.C. 303 · United States Tax Court · Nov 25, 1997

    The maximum price was paid for the best qualified farmland as determined by a formula adopted by the county, and lesser amounts were paid for lesser qualified farmland. … However, if the donor or a related person receives, or can reasonably expect to receive, a financial or economic benefit that is substantial, but it is clearly shown that the benefit is less than the amount of the transfer

    Cited 24 timesPublished
  • DeVelin v. Commissioner

    22 B.T.A. 1400 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 30, 1931

    Furthermore, no evidence was introduced to establish the value of the fee itself. Therefore, we can allot no portion of the royalties,to a return of capital, but must include the entire amounts in income. … The character of the mining risk here involved was discussed by qualified experts called respectively by both sides.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Durovic v. Commissioner

    54 T.C. 1364 · United States Tax Court · Jun 24, 1970

    The ruling requests were made at a time when petitioner and his brother were more preoccupied with establishing a center, the Institute, for the treatment of cancer, than with establishing their tax status. … Clearly, therefore, bad they originally filed individual returns for these years, their election in 1965 to file joint returns would have been untimely.

    Cited 83 timesPublished
  • St. Luke's Medical Center v. United States

    22 Cl. Ct. 322 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1991

    Defendant responds that an express withdrawal of sovereign immunity is not a necessary prerequisite to divest this court of jurisdiction. … Id 5 *328 Plaintiff summarizes the rule in Whitecliff, as follows: “[T]he Court clearly established that in the absence of specific statutory procedures for, or limitation upon, judicial review, the Court can review provider

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Nunez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 6, 2019

    Thus, based on the evidence, the Special Master, found that it was “more likely than not that J.J. had a brain defect,” and that J.J. qualified as a “vulnerable infant” in accordance with the first factor of the Triple Risk … Cytokines are “a generic term for nonantibody proteins released by one cell population (e.g. primed T lymphocytes) on contact with specific antigen, which act as intercellular mediators, as in the generation of an immune

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Kellus v. United States

    13 Cl. Ct. 538 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1987

    This court is “not empowered to promote a government employee to a higher grade, or to grant an employee judgment for the pay of a higher grade, unless the employee can clearly show a legal entitlement to such a remedy based … It was conceded that selections for the positions he applied for were made on a “best qualified” basis.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Rice v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 15, 2019

    Respondent denies that any of the aforementioned immunizations caused R.R.’s injury or her current condition. … furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.