Case law

A. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 27, 2023

She attempted several nasal remedies to improve her ability to clearly inhale through her left nostril, but they did not help. Id. … may elicit immune responses to self-antigens.”

Smith v. Gober

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 31, 2000

As the Supreme Court has clearly instructed, any waiver of sovereign immunity must be explicit. N.Y. Rayon Importing Co., supra. … Even assuming arguendo that the Secretary has the authority, he clearly has not delegated such authority.

Michael T. Acciola v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 320 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 5, 2008

The letter concluded by stating that "service connection should be established in accordance with 38 C.F.R. [§§] 3.303, 3.304, 3.307." R. at 62. … Subsequently, the appellant's representative filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) that stated: We maintain the [RO] decision of April 13, 2000, is clearly erroneous, for not establishing service[] connection

Munn v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

28 Fed. Cl. 490 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 1, 1993

In this case, petitioner’s election clearly shows an intent to proceed in traditional civil litigation apart from the Program. … The language of the statute must be considered conclusive unless there is a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary. North Dakota v.

Kelly Schultz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2013

L.S.’s claim is not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The doctrine of “sovereign immunity” is a judge-made doctrine from which federal courts have derived certain principles of statutory construction. … And, the standards governing RCFC 20 are also clearly satisfied.

Pettit v. United States

488 F.2d 1026 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 19, 1973

Further, Gnotta held that the Administrative Procedure Act is not an implied waiver of governmental immunity from suit. … Such regulations must, in turn, be *249 based on statutory authority waiving the sovereign immunity to suit.

Tibby-Brawner Glass Co. v. Commissioner

2 B.T.A. 918 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 19, 1925

Green: The taxpayer sought to establish the value of the plant and equipment by the introduction of a retrospective appraisal of the real estate, buildings, and equipment, which purported to fix the sound value thereof. … Only as to a very few items was he able, in any measure, fo qualify as an expert.

CROSS

26 I. & N. Dec. 485 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2015

Clearly, if “legitimation” has the same meaning in section 101(c)(1) as “paternity . . . established by legitimation” does in section 321(a)(3), then the statutes are in conflict. … Conversely, anyone who proves that his “paternity . . . has not been established by legitimation” under section 321(a)(3) would accordingly be unable to qualify as a “child.”

REYES

20 I. & N. Dec. 789 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1994

As such, he is clearly precluded from establishing his good moral character under 4 As murder is specifically included in the definition of "aggravated felony" under section 101(a)(43) of the Act, the 1990 revisions to … section 101(0(8) of the Act clearly and significantly broadened the class of individuals who are now forever precluded from establishing their good moral character. 5 We also note that a widely circulated publication, Immigration

Turco v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 222 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 2, 1996

In February 1992, a VA regional office (RO) established a 40% schedular disability rating for the appellant’s lower back problems. R. at 74-75. … As a consequence, the BVA’s conclusion that the appellant was not qualified to receive SMP under the housebound rate was plausible, and thus not clearly erroneous. See Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 53 .

Estate of Johnson v. Commissioner

56 T.C. 944 · United States Tax Court · Aug 9, 1971

generally exempt from taxes due to their State-owned status rather than section 501(a), to omit them from the sections requiring taxation of unrelated-business income would leave the door open for a claim of complete tax immunity … A state or municipality itself, however, would not qualify as an organization described in section 501(c) (3) since its purposes are clearly not exclusively those described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code.

Jeun v. United States

128 Fed. Cl. 203 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2016

Pincus provided a note for plaintiff’s command stating: SPC Chi Jeun has cognitive disorder which impairs his ability to follow directions unless very clearly communication [sic] verbally or in writing. … See id. at 114 “Only a serious impediment can qualify to suspend the running of the statute.” Id. at 113.

Small v. United States

130 Fed. Cl. 88 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 22, 2016

Cir. 2000) (explaining that EAJA *101 is a waiver of sovereign immunity). … was based on agency error, in order for a moving party to establish its status as a prevailing party.

Singleton v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 689 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 16, 2002

The United States enjoys immunity from suit unless Congress expressly provides otherwise. Brown v. United States, 30 Fed.Cl. 227, 229 (1993), aff'd, 26 F.3d 139 , 1994 WL 169671 (Fed.Cir.1994). … The Federal Circuit held, in no uncertain terms, that 37 U.S.C. § 204 (a) not only qualifies as a money-mandating statute for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, id. at 1312-14 , but that an assertion

Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States

67 Ct. Cl. 63 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 4, 1929

They saved the further and additional sum of $166,050 by their immunity from injunction arising from the act of 1918.” Interest to the amount, of $99,360.00 is likewise claimed upon this item. … Cls. 433 ) a record of its own production, a record of volume and directness, establishing a fixed royalty of $20 per beam.

Hickman v. United States

10 Cl. Ct. 550 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 8, 1986

The bench ruling detailed those facts which clearly established that each plaintiff properly has been classified as exempt consistent with the applicable legal standards and with the principle that FLSA exemptions must be … You cannot have an individual structuring the performance of his duties to qualify or not qualify for the FLSA exemption.

Penn Towne Builders, Inc. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,254 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 6, 1984

Defendant contends moreover that governmental oversight alone, no matter how pervasive, cannot obviate sovereign immunity. … Summit, as required, obtained a “Certificate of Authority” from the United States Department of Treasury in order to qualify as an acceptable surety.

McGuire v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 20, 2015

Weig lacked the training in immunology to offer a theory of how the HPV vaccine causes CDH via the immune system. Tr. 171-73. Dr. … Herzog looked for evidence of immune-mediated diseases such as lupus that could have caused headaches as a consequence of that disease but did not find any evidence of an immune-mediated process. Tr. 267. Thus, Dr.

Matter of Regional Rail Reorganization Proceedings

421 F. Supp. 1061 · Special Court under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act · May 28, 1976

The Report does indeed refer to IRC § 401; qualified plans are clearly intended to be protected. … Co., of Feb. 1, 1968 (established March 1, 1963 by Pennsylvania R.R.) Plan 2 — Policy of Interim Pensions, Penn Central Transp. Co., of Feb. 1, 1968 (established May 28, 1959 by New York C.R.R.)

Hamza v. United States

40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,951 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 19, 1996

These facts clearly indicate that Mr. Runey was plaintiffs representative and, as such, possessed the requisite authority to accept notice on plaintiffs behalf. … “Absent any express and unequivocal statutory basis, this court may not, under long established principles, waive or extend a statutory limitation on the sovereign’s immunity to suit.” Dico, Inc., v.