Case law

Abraham v. United States

81 Fed. Cl. 178 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 24, 2008

Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 , 110 S.Ct. 596 , 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (holding that the burden is on the party seeking to exercise jurisdiction clearly to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction); see also RCFC 12( … United States, 922 F.2d 816, 820 (Fed.Cir.1990) (“[T]he Claims Court held that Congress had not relinquished the Government’s sovereign immunity with respect to implied-in-law contract obligations.”).

City Line Joint Venture v. United States

71 Fed. Cl. 486 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 26, 2006

Such a sale could fail, for example, if no qualified purchasers were found within a 15-month period or if a qualified purchaser were ultimately unable to proceed with the transaction. 12 U.S.C. § 4114 (a)(2). … Establishing a Regulatory Taking Having established the ripeness of plaintiffs claim, we now turn to the question of whether the statutory restrictions on plaintiffs right to prepayment constitute a taking of property for

GEMS Environmental Management Services

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jul 2, 2024

Standards for Considering Motions for Summary Judgement The standards for summary judgment are well established and need little elaboration here. … The waiver of sovereign immunity averred here by GEMS is the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3901, et seq. (PPA).

Boeing Co. v. United States

37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,276 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 10, 1992

The TCO’s letter of January 25, 1991 is clearly not a final decision satisfying the CDA jurisdictional requirements for a Government claim. … Plaintiff’s submission of a DD250 requesting $1,853,-352.00 for three “vax” computers clearly qualifies as a contractor claim under the CDA.

Calypso Technology, Inc. v. CALYPSO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Aug 30, 2011

Therefore, plaintiff has established its standing. See Cunningham v. … There is clearly some connection between plaintiff’s goods and defendant’s services, as both are in the financial field.

William A. Forcier v. R. James Nicholson

19 Vet. App. 414 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 25, 2006

Giffen's diagnosis was clearly erroneous. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4); Wood, 1 Vet. App. at 193; Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 52. … Forcier failed to meet the necessary diagnostic criteria, even assuming the existence of a qualifying stressor, and because a medical diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder is necessary to establish service connection

JOLLEY

13 I. & N. Dec. 543 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1970

The special in- uiry officer concluded that the evidence had been properly admit- ed into the record and that it established clearly, convincingly, ,d unequivocally that the respondent is an alien and that he is … We agree with the special inquiry officer that the foregoing evi- dence was properly received and that it establishes clearly, con- vincingly, and unequivocally that respondent is the Thomas Glenn Jolley who executed the

Barth Smelting Corp. v. Commissioner

30 T.C. 1073 · United States Tax Court · Aug 18, 1958

Ten shares were issued as qualifying shares, and, as of September 30, 1942, the balance of the outstanding stock-holdings in Barth Refining were as follows: Otto Barth Lazare Barth Ernest Barth Hugh Simon Common_ 40 22 22 … It is clearly apparent from this record that petitioner failed to establish either commitment or consummation by petitioner and therefore we hold petitioner not entitled to any relief under the provisions of section 722 (

Acceptance of Gifts and Awards

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Nov 4, 1988

There is a highly limited exception for the acceptance of reimbursement from an organization qualifying under section 501(0}(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, but only in connection with *training or attendance at ` meetings … Handling of Gifts of Nominal Value You have also asked whether it would be acceptable for someone on your staff to identify those gifts that are clearly below the value limitations, without seeking a formal appraisal.

Sharpe v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 18, 2019

Petitioner stated that L.M. had not reacted to her previous immunizations she received in the fall. Id. … The Special Master began by examining whether petitioner had suffered a pre-vaccination encephalopathy sufficient to qualify for a post-vaccination aggravation claim.

Beres v. United States

97 Fed. Cl. 757 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 7, 2011

and expressly limits or qualifies the interest conveyed.” … or qualifies the interest granted.”

S-P

21 I. & N. Dec. 486 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1996

Meanwhile, on May 5, 1995, the applicant timely filed an appellate brief which more clearly specified the reasons for his appeal. The Service submitted a late brief on December 4, 1995. … An alien must be a “refugee” to qualify for asylum under section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (1994).

Delphi Petroleum, Inc. v. United States

662 F. Supp. 2d 1348 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 15, 2009

Aectra exported finished petroleum products, and the Government did not dispute that Aectra generally qualified for drawback. Id. at 1367. … The final clause states that “[n]o extension [of the three-year filing limit] will be granted unless it is established that the Customs Service was responsible for the untimely filing.” 19 U.S.C. § 1313(r)(1).

Robillard v. Commissioner

35 T.C. 896 · United States Tax Court · Mar 13, 1961

For these reasons, paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1303(b) are clearly inapplicable to the facts herein. … The facts in the instant case, in our opinion, clearly show an agreement from October 1,1955, to pay the additional wages to petitioner.

B.H. Aircraft Company Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 2022

Plaintiff Has Failed to Establish Standing “It is well-established that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Brandt v. … (“Unlike the F404 A/B Liner prints . . . which clearly mark the center axis -AP- on the drawing views this print indicates only the horizontal axis . . . .”)

Henderson v. United States

175 Ct. Cl. 690 · United States Court of Claims · May 13, 1966

These facts should be established by evidence of sufficient weight to be convincing. a. … The findings recorded will be the substance of the facts material to the issue as established by the evidence.

Diebold, Inc. v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 193 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 18, 1989

The plaintiff’s attempt to establish material factual disputes fails. … of the Secretary, does clearly reflect income. 26 U.S.C. § 446 (a) and (b).

Kunz Construction Co. v. United States

35 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,630 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 9, 1989

As noted above, defendant bears the burden of establishing the existence of such “special circumstances”; defendant has failed to meet that burden here. … Kunz’ application is clearly adequate to determine not only its entitlement to fees but the parameters of its recovery.

Herbert v. Commissioner

30 T.C. 26 · United States Tax Court · Apr 15, 1958

* [does] not qualify for the reductions in the rate of tax provided by the Income Tax Convention between the United States and the United Kingdom.” … The provisions of article IX clearly indicate the recognition by the United States that the ownership and leasing of real property do not constitute per se engaging in trade or business.

United States v. Nitek Electronics, Inc.

844 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 13, 2012

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction, see Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. … Supp. 2d 1345, 1356 (2010), and a plaintiff must “show that it exhausted its administrative remedies, or that it qualifies for an exception to the exhaustion doctrine.” Consol. Bearings Co. v.