Case law

Victory Carriers, Inc. v. United States

467 F.2d 1334 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 13, 1972

receive credit for sales and similar taxes or foreign taxes of any kind to the extent classifiable as vessel operating expense under said General Order No. 22, if the General Agent shall have used due diligence to secure immunity … It is well-established that an agent is responsible to his principal for the actions of a sub-agent in handling the affairs of the principal which have been entrusted to the sub-agent.

National American Insurance v. United States

72 Fed. Cl. 451 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 6, 2006

waivers of sovereign immunity, they do establish that subrogation may give rise to monetary claims against the United States, thereby providing the necessary predicate for properly invoking the Tucker Act. … Clearly, defendant was on notice that the surety was asserting a right to the contract funds prior to the final payment it made to IPBX in May of 2001.

Martti v. United States

121 Fed. Cl. 87 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 5, 2015

The letter explained that income earned in ocean-based activity on international waters does not qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. … Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. at 8 (determining that the language of section 6511(a) clearly states that taxpayers “must comply with the Code's refund scheme before

Uetz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 16, 2014

Allred opined that Petitioner’s headache was “most likely an immune reaction but could have been a viral reaction,” and that he “would like [Petitioner] to stay off work for another week.” Pet’r’s Ex. 5 at 7. … II LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD Congress established the Vaccine Program in 1988. See 42 U.S.C. §300aa-1-34.

Sumter v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 517 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 20, 2004

Although not raised clearly in her complaint, in subsequent filings with the court, , Ms. … The plaintiffs “extrinsic” and “intrinsic” fraud claims clearly sound in tort. See Marcinkowsky v.

Beneficial Foundation, Inc. v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 639 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 9, 1985

Quite clearly, the Service has drawn a relatively broad perimeter in describing the purposes a program may have and still satisfy subsection (g)(3). … establish that the purpose of its grant program is sufficiently narrow to meet the requirements of subsection (g)(3).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. United States

42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,318 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 28, 1998

The Postal Reorganization Act defines the USPS as “an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States.” 39 U.S.C. § 201 . … The court found this definition significant in that title 28 defines “agency” as including any “independent establishment” of the United States. Butz, 499 F.2d at 624 .

UDGAWA

14 I. & N. Dec. 578 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1974

Although it has not been clearly established that the applicant's employer desires to continue importing foreign labor, we are unable to hold that the applicant will be employed in a responsible capacity within the meaning … In exclusion proceedings the applicant has the burden of proof to establish that he qualifies for admission under the claimed status. Section 291, Iinmigration and Nationality Act.

Stockton East Water District v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 515 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 10, 2006

In order to qualify as third-party beneficiaries to a government contract, the parties must show that the United States waived its defense of sovereign immunity. See Chancellor Manor v. … Mont., 124 F.3d at 1273 (holding that third party “must fall within a class clearly intended to be benefitted” by the contract).

SOFFIC

22 I. & N. Dec. 158 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1998

Section 203(b)(5)(A) of the Act provides classification to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise: (i) which the alien has established, ( … tax records, Form I-9, or other similar documents for ten (10) qualifying employees, if such employees have already been hired following the establishment of the new commercial enterprise; or (B) A copy of a comprehensive

Koller v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 29, 2021

On July 29, 2016, petitioner established care with Advance Nurse Practitioner Brenda Brusky. Pet. Ex. 11 at 51. … theory to establish by preponderant evidence proof of the three Althen prongs and to establish that petitioner’s May 13, 2015 Prevnar-13 vaccination caused his Miller-Fisher GBS.

Rbvetco, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 12, 2024

Nor may the Court repudiate established Supreme Court precedent to award attorney’s fees to a losing party. … Plaintiff notes that the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) “creates an exception to this general rule” but admits that it does not qualify as a “prevailing party.” (Id.).

Crutchfield v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

125 Fed. Cl. 251 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2014

This exam included a laboratory blood test; the results indicated that Petitioner was not immune to measles, had an “equivocal” immune response to mumps, but was immune to rubella. Pet. 1/16/09 Ex. 2 at 6, 9. … Under these circumstances, a petitioner must establish causation in fact, i.e., fust, by establishing a prima facie case offering evidence of sufficient facts to establish each element of the claim and then by meeting a burden

Reading & Bates Corp. v. United States

40 Fed. Cl. 737 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 20, 1998

The regulations clearly contemplate the deduction of open accounts. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.166 -l(c). … RBX clearly had a right to demand payment on the promissory notes.

Baka v. United States

74 Fed. Cl. 692 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 29, 2006

Baka invokes the substantive rights in 10 U.S.C. § 1408 to establish jurisdiction and the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity. … “It is well established that statutes of limitations for causes of action against the United States, being conditions on the waiver of sovereign immunity, are jurisdictional in nature.” Martinez v.

Transcountry Packing Co. v. United States

568 F.2d 1333 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 25, 1978

This court is a court of limited statutory jurisdiction which cannot be expanded beyond the bounds established by the Congress. Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270, 273 (1957); Carney v. United States, 199 Ct. … As in Somali Development Bank , plaintiffs petition clearly sounds in tort.

Jamestown & Newport Ferry Co. v. Commissioner

16 B.T.A. 638 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · May 23, 1929

Not only is the purpose and intent to restrict the exemption to income of the- specified governments, themselves clearly stated in affirmative language, but any contrary intent and purpose is expressly negatived. … Clearly then, when the statute exempted from taxation “income derived from any public utility * * * and accruing to any State * * * or any political subdivision of a State * * * ” it referred only to income belonging to the

Remote Diagnostic Technologies LLC v. United States

133 Fed. Cl. 198 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 18, 2017

Although the Tucker Act explicitly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims, it “does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages.” … Standing In order to establish standing in bid protest actions, a protester must be an interested party. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) (2012).

Doe v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 337 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 5, 2002

A conclusory affidavit rnthout supporting evidence is inadequate to establish such ‘party’ status. … Just as we acknowledged in Fields, “[t]he purpose of the EAJA is to lift the ‘bar of sovereign immunity for award of fees in suits brought by litigants qualifying under the statute.’ Levernier Constr., Inc. v.

Warren v. United States

106 Fed. Cl. 507 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2012

The statute clearly grants the power of mandamus only to federal district courts. … However, plaintiff has not established that a writ of mandamus is necessary or appropriate in this ease.