Case law

Kerr-McGee Corp. v. United States

32 Fed. Cl. 43 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 12, 1994

Clearly, the Government, not the applicant, must decide whether the test has been met. 11 Neither does Berklund say that the USGS decision was in any way dispositive. … First, he notes that “the presence of attapulgite clay in the Osceola National Forest phosphate deposits has not been established.”

Barnett Banks v. Commissioner

106 T.C. 103 · United States Tax Court · Feb 29, 1996

During 1980 and 1981, and other years not at issue, the subsidiary bank corporations (issuing banks) issued Visa cards 2 to customers who qualified for the cards. … If the taxpayér’s method of accounting does not clearly reflect income* the computation of taxable income shall be made under such method as, in the opinion of the Secretary, does clearly reflect income. Sec. 446(b).

Brooks v. Commissioner

22 B.T.A. 71 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 5, 1931

Beach, supra. *82 The doctrine presently approved by the Supreme Court, at least in so far as it involves the taxing power of the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, is clearly stated in Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. … We have determined that in general intangibles may be properly taxed at the domicile of their owner and we can find no sufficient reason for saying that they are not entitled to enjoy an immunity against taxation at more

AWWAL

19 I. & N. Dec. 617 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1988

The notice alleged that the respondent's mother was separated from her husband at the time his adjustment was granted, and that the respondent therefore did not qualify as the stepchild of a United States citizen at that … These cases are clearly distinguishable from the present one, however, since in Pagnerre and Mowrer there had been valid marriages at some point, whereas here there never was a valid marriage.

Education of Children on Federal Lands

21 Pa. D. & C.2d 310 · Pennsylvania Department of Justice · May 4, 1960

They do not, as a matter of right, have access to State schools, hospitals, mental institutions, or similar establishments. … Jurisdiction obtained by consent or cession may be qualified by agreement or through offer and acceptance or ratification. It is a matter of arrangement. These arrangements the courts will recognize and respect.”

Curt Teich Foundation v. Commissioner

48 T.C. 963 · United States Tax Court · Sep 29, 1967

(2) Did Curt Teich, Sr.’s gift of securities to the Curt Teich Foundation qualify as a deductible charitable contribution on his 1960 gift tax return? … Respondent does not question the fact that the foundation qualified under sec. 501(c) (3) for its taxable years 1952 through 1958.

Hug Co. v. War Contracts Price Adjustment Board

14 T.C. 621 · United States Tax Court · Apr 18, 1950

While the holders of the new stock and the notes had the right to elect four directors in the case of the petitioner’s default in certain respects the evidence clearly establishes that no action was taken by them toward that … of twelve months, the $500,000 amount and the $25,000 amount shall be reduced to the same fractional part thereof for the purposes of this paragraph. 348.2 Computation of Aggregate Receipts and Accruals. (1) In order to qualify

James v. United States

86 Fed. Cl. 391 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 5, 2009

A jurisdictional fact is clearly called into question: Whether the plaintiff Joyce James is or was the owner of 205 Dozier Lane, as the Whitley complaint alleges. … Moreover, the statement would not appear to qualify as an admission by a party-opponent, see FRE 801(d)(2), as defendant’s counsel heard it not from Ms.

Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Brown

19 Ct. Int'l Trade 663 · United States Court of International Trade · May 9, 1995

Plaintiffs contend they qualify as “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action. ” The statutory provisions of the FTZA do not speak to challenges to Board disapprovals of subzone applications. … The Court recognizes that although the principles of real party in interest and standing bear resemblance, “several * * * elements of the standing doctrine are clearly unrelated to the rather simple proposition set out in

Kimball Systems, Inc. v. United States

80 Cust. Ct. 54 · United States Customs Court · Mar 17, 1978

Merser was without question qualified as an expert in an industry known as the plastic sewing fastener industry. … Most sources show clearly that the primary function of a clasp is simply to fasten two parts together.

Cooper v. United States

1 Ct. Cl. 85 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1863

They do not do so in express terms, and, in order to have that effect by implication, the subsequent statute must be clearly and indisputably contradictory, and contrary to the former act in the very matter, and the repugnancy … The leaning of the courts is so strong as almost to establish the doctrine that there can be no repeal by implication.— (Dwarris on Stat., 530- 31; 2 Q. B. Rep., 84; 5 Beav., 582.)

Paalan v. United States

58 Fed. Cl. 99 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2003

New, as Evidence Custodian, clearly is qualified to testify regarding the circumstances under which plaintiffs personal property was confiscated and maintained by the Navy. Conversely, plaintiff argues that Ms. … No prejudice has been asserted or established in this case. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to strike is denied. 2.

Sortex Co. of North America v. United States

80 Cust. Ct. 134 · United States Customs Court · Jun 6, 1978

The evidence clearly established that the machine was not employed by farmers on the farms but by business-enterprises away from the farms, which process crops produced by the farmers, and that the machine had as an essential … In each instance, the Court found that the term “diamond dust” was not qualified by anything which preceded it in the statutory language; that the statute involved was an unqualified eo nomine provision; and that synthetic

Mandatory Disclosure of Civil Rights Cold Case Records

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Feb 4, 2019

And the Act does not clearly provide for post- ponement of public disclosure after transmission, especially if the Review Board has terminated by that point. … Under these precedents, the qualifications that S. 3191 prescribes for Review Board members clearly cross the line.

Digiflight, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2023

Plaintiff is clearly an actual bidder in this procurement. … harms turns in its favor, and that awarding injunctive relief is clearly in the public interest.

Standard Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. United States

823 F. Supp. 2d 1327 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 17, 2012

In ruling on claims that are not distinguishable from Standard’s in any material way, the Court of Appeals held that “[b]ecause it serves a substantial government interest, the Byrd Amendment is . . . clearly not violative … We conclude, however, that Standard does not qualify for permanent equitable relief.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. United States

31 C.C.P.A. 56 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1943

It was stipulated by counsel for tbe respective parties that the collective exhibit is in chief value of copper and not plated with platinum, gold, silver, or colored with a gold lacquer, and it was *58 established by the … words “and valued above $5 per dozen pieces,” clearly refer only to the class of articles provided for in the last part of said clause (2).

James P. Willen v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 21, 2025

And they also establish that, particularly with cases like Cardoza, the Court needs to look at what the Board's actions effectively do, not just what the Board said. See id. … Willen qualifies for a higher rating—so it's material. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Thus, we can conclude that the Board clearly erred when it concluded that Mr.

Kay Manufacturing Co. v. United States

676 F.2d 555 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 10, 1982

Kazmirski was a very highly qualified operator of machining tools with outstanding abilities in designing machining equipment and in training operators in their use. … It must be emphasized, however, that such proof is not allowed for primary reliance on by defendant unless defendant has first clearly shown that comparative evidence is impossible to obtain.

Infrastructure Defense Technologies, LLC v. United States

81 Fed. Cl. 375 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 7, 2008

The protestor must show that it would have been a qualified bidder. … While IDT clearly would like to be a larger part of that program, it has not established that the Directive has the effect of a statute or regulation such that acting inconsistently with its provisions would constitute grounds