Case law

Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States

547 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 19, 2008

In assessing the relative merits of the parties’ arguments, the Court’s role here is a clearly delimited one and “[i]t is not within the Court's domain either to weigh the adequate quality or quantity of the evidence for … to sell to Alcoa in Brazil, which would enable them to qualify for sales to Alcoa in the U.S. on an accelerated basis”); and established EU relationships (“[Brazilian producers] had only [confidential number] contracts that

Laningham v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 535 · United States Court of Claims · May 31, 1983

However, when it only becomes manifest after release from duty, its connection to the “line of duty” is not always so clearly evident. … On the other hand, plaintiff has clearly and convincingly carried his burden in establishing that the BCNR’s decision denying his application of October 15,1980, for the restoration of his disability pay and allowances under

Olson v. Commissioner

48 T.C. 855 · United States Tax Court · Sep 21, 1967

framework of the policies established for the group. … Congress clearly intended to facilitate by according to them nonreeognition of present gain.

Cybertech Group, Inc. v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 638 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 14, 2001

CGI’s further allegations of impropriety CGI avers that Intellidyne is a company with fewer than ten employees and, accord *642 ingly, it will be unable to provide the services under its delivery order unless it hires qualified … Clearly, the procedures set forth in this part of the FAR have no applicability whatsoever to the placement of a delivery order from an FSS schedule.

Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United States

76 Fed. Cl. 512 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 18, 2007

United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2003) (en bane) (“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 … It is their position that they merely began the application process in order to qualify for incentives, such as the equity loan, and never intended the letters submitted to FmHA to be prepayment requests.

Redzepagic v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2025

She submits that GBS resulting from a flu vaccine is a “Table” injury, and “[t]herefore, a reputable medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and injury is clearly established and accepted by the government.” … While there is no definitive proof that petitioner suffered from an upper respiratory infection or that the symptoms she referred to as flu-like symptoms would qualify as an upper respiratory infection, Dr.

Stone Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,007 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 4, 1991

Although this fact is clearly in dispute, we conclude that it is not material to a ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment. … Ill Historically, the United States has been immune from liability for interest awards in the absence of express Congressional consent to the award of interest which is separate from a general waiver of sovereign immunity

United Business Corp. of Am. v. Commissioner

19 B.T.A. 809 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Apr 30, 1930

Under the above construction of the statute it might then be argued that any accumulation, whether large or small, reasonable or unreasonable, would establish the prohibited intent and bring the corporation within the provisions … The petitioners offered a number of witnesses who were qualified in an unusual degree to testify from personal knowledge and experience with respect to the conditions existing in Seattle during and prior to the taxable years

Cementos Anahuac Del Golfo, S.A. v. United States

687 F. Supp. 1558 · United States Court of International Trade · May 12, 1988

domestic industry, or retard materially the establishment of a domestic industry. ****** 14. … The defendants contend that, since the executive branch of the government negotiated the Understanding, its regulations are “clearly the best evidence” 13 of what that meaning is, “notwithstanding how that term has been used

Delaney Construction Corp. v. United States

197 A.L.R. Fed. 719 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 19, 2003

Pursuant to that legislation, the HUBZone program was established. … This is clearly evident from the illogical argument of defendant and plaintiff that the FAR 52.219^1 clause is needed to provide a place for a HUBZone small business to indicate that it waives the statutory price evaluation

Hydraulics International, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2025

As described above, HII has not clearly demonstrated that it is or was capable of producing a compliant AGPU 1.1 system. … HII submits various other contentions, including that HII is an American small business, HII was found to be a qualified “compliant” producer of AGPU systems by the Army, and that continuing with the improper sole source

United States v. Astra Trading Corp.

44 C.C.P.A. 8 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1956

The principle is too well established for the citation of references that, in determining the classification of goods, an eo nomine designation must, unless a legislative intent to the contrary is clearly indicated, be preferred … D. 555, unless a contrary legislative intent clearly appears, United States v. Kawahara, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 231 , T.D. 42242.

St. Elizabeth Hospital v. United States

558 F.2d 8 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 15, 1977

Elizabeth is a qualified provider of services under the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(e)(l-8)(1970), and has engaged in providing such services from 1966. … This eight-year shortening of the time in which to change election clearly had substantive impact on plaintiff in this case. Publication in the Federal Register, therefore, was required. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(1)(D).

Phoenix Management, Inc. v. United States

127 Fed. Cl. 358 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2016

The Air Force’s plan here, to consider unknown offerors as acceptable, qualifies unknown offerors as eligible for selection but does not impart any other competitive benefit. … They cannot eliminate unknown offerors, however, as this would clearly constitute unfavorable treatment.

Gardner-Cook v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

59 Fed. Cl. 38 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 25, 2003

Hyde is not on staff or affiliated with any healthcare institution, but states that he is “basically lab and research oriented” and “self-funded” in his research on post-hepatitis B immunization patients. … Hyde, M.D., is not qualified to render an opinion in this case;” “that Petitioner did not have clinical symptoms and signs of a neurologic injury and was not injured neurologically;” “that Petitioner’s arm and shoulder numbness

L-3 Communications Corp. v. United States

99 Fed. Cl. 283 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 20, 2011

In addition to alleging a violation of a statute or regulation, a plaintiff must qualify as an “interested party” under the Tucker Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(1). … The main contention between the parties is whether Egypt qualifies as a “foreign government reimbursing the agency.” 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (c)(4).

Ravi v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2022

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … Cl. at 128 (citing cases), unless those agreements “clearly and unmistakably subject[] the government to monetary liability for any breach,” Aluminum Shapes, LLC v. United States, 139 Fed.

De Paolis v. Commissioner

69 T.C. 283 · United States Tax Court · Nov 28, 1977

These "payments in lieu of wages" qualified him *288 for the "sick pay" exclusion until the time he would ordinarily have retired. … Clearly enough, that which petitioner received was a pension from a public retirement system as defined in the statute.

Simmons v. United States

29 Fed. Cl. 136 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 18, 1993

Plaintiff’s substitute return clearly does not satisfy this test as it does not state the grounds for a refund, much less that a refund was even due. … Therefore, the substitute return does not qualify as a valid formal or informal claim for refund. II.

A. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 10, 2023

Steinman is retained that are assigned to me, I will not compensate time spent on opinions on legal issues that he is not qualified to address.” (emphasis in original). … Steinman’s expert report went well beyond that standard and demonstrated how the homologies would produce an immune response.