Case law

Goist v. United States

85 Fed. Cl. 726 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 12, 2009

Mere labels are insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Just as importantly, plaintiffs contractual theory is utterly fanciful. … To the contrary, this plaintiff has engaged in a campaign of harassment against various attorneys and judges and in so doing, has clearly abused the legal process. .

Parks v. Comm'r

145 T.C. 278 · United States Tax Court · Nov 17, 2015

We said it loudly and clearly, ‘‘Put criminals in jail. Make ‘em do their time, and work ‘em while they’re there.’’ … By contrast, the newspaper article is itself a piece of advocacy—quite clearly making the case against the conclusions urged by the radio message.

Healthestate, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 10, 2020

Like the RFC, they were established by the United States for purely governmental purposes. Shipping Act of 1916, 64 P.L. 260, 39 Stat. 728. … proxy for purposes of this action because the suit is clearly against the United States. 9 The Court also found § 1500 did not bar the suit because the counterclaim in U.S.

Whistleblower 21276-13W v. Comm'r

147 T.C. 121 · United States Tax Court · Aug 3, 2016

By using the word “including”, Congress clearly intended the list of items deemed to be collected proceeds to be nonexhaustive. … - 29 - IV.B., section 7623(b)(1) establishes the manner in which the Secretary calculates the award to be made to a whistleblower who qualifies for the mandatory award program.

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.

McCollum v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 14, 2017

And, therefore, the epidemiologic studies cited in this case . . . clearly do not help Petitioner carry her burden. Id. at *15 (emphasis in original). … Moreover, her opinion must be weighed against the equally- qualified sleep specialist treaters at Stanford who opined as to Petitioner’s condition. Indeed, Mr.

VELAZQUEZ-HERRERA

24 I. & N. Dec. 503 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2008

By enacting section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act and other provisions augmenting the aggravated felony definition, however, Congress clearly intended to single out those who have been convicted of maltreating or preying upon … We are mindful of the fact that the respondent entered his plea to a charge that clearly identified his victim as a child.

Sandvik AB v. United States

721 F. Supp. 1322 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 14, 1989

Any supposition by plaintiffs that the ITA used the class or kind designation instead of the like product is clearly mistaken. … Plaintiffs also failed to establish that the discount was a function of the quantities sold.

BECKFORD

22 I. & N. Dec. 1216 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2000

The respondent’s motion to reopen is clearly untimely. … The respondent has established aspects of his case that clearly compromised its fairness and resulted in his having to resort to this untimely motion.

Estate of Finkel v. Donovan

614 F. Supp. 1245 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 31, 1985

Furthermore, plaintiff contends that the Secretary’s own findings establish that increased imports “contributed importantly” to the separations at Trifine. … Hence, Tyler is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

Skinner-Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 3, 2019

A health care provider can choose not to qualify under the MMA, and if so, “the patient of a health care provider who has not qualified is no different from any other tort or contract victim, while the patient of a qualified … Cir. 2011) (“‘[W]here Congress has clearly stated its intent in the language of a statute, a court should not inquire further into the meaning of the statute.’” (quoting Millenium Lumber Distrib., Ltd. v.

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States

21 Cl. Ct. 565 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1990

Other statutes can be characterized as only guardian in nature because they clearly contemplate an active decision-making role by the tribe or by individual Indians. … Likewise, Part 162 does not establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme that is as pervasive as the statutes covering mineral lands.

In re Spiller

500 F.2d 1170 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 8, 1974

Such pieces of blotting paper hardly qualify as a “water-wet web” as required by the claims on appeal and as disclosed in Lichtenberger et al. … The heart of this invention is clearly the use of electrostatic forces to apply dry starch particles to a wet paper web.

R.V.I. Guar. Co. v. Comm'r

145 T.C. 209 · United States Tax Court · Sep 21, 2015

SSAP 62R, cited in the text, was originally drafted to establish rules of accounting for reinsurance. … COMMISSIONER 235 should prevent its policies from qualifying as ‘‘insurance.’’

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.

Schering Corp. v. Commissioner

69 T.C. 579 · United States Tax Court · Jan 23, 1978

, deductions, credits, or allowances between or among such organizations, trades, or businesses, if he determines that such distribution, apportionment, or allocation is necessary in order to prevent evasion of taxes or clearly … section 482] authorizes the respondent [Commissioner] to apply the broad powers of that section only if he “determines that such distribution, apportionment, or allocation is necessary in order to prevent evasion of taxes or clearly

Wassenaar v. Commissioner

72 T.C. 1195 · United States Tax Court · Sep 26, 1979

deduction for his expenses at NYU by section 1.162-5(b)(3), Income Tax Regs., which provides that educational expenses are not deductible if the education “is part of a program of study being pursued by him which will lead to qualifying … The petitioner’s expenditures at NYU clearly constitute “special courses” and are nondeductible pursuant to section 1.212-l(f), Income Tax Regs., as well. 2 Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner’s educational expenses

White Sands Ranchers v. United States

14 Cl. Ct. 559 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 30, 1988

Of course, to say that a statute reposes discretion in those charged with its administration does not mean that the exercise of that discretion is immune from a court’s power to review. … The standard of review is whether the action under challenge has a rational basis, i.e., is not so clearly wrong as to be arbitrary. Citizens To Preserve Overton Park, v.

Slovacek v. United States

40 Fed. Cl. 828 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 6, 1998

As defendant correctly contends, this clearly constitutes a rational basis for disparate treatment. The federal district courts in Texas are bound by the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Alexander v. … Federal Claims is an Article I court of limited jurisdiction created by Congress as a forum where private parties could sue the government for non-tort money claims, where the claims would otherwise be barred by sovereign immunity

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).