Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.69s
New Hampshire Flight Procurement, LLC v. United States
118 Fed. Cl. 203 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 29, 2014
Ct. 126 (2012) (“A plaintiff lacking privity of contract can nonetheless sue for damages under that contract if it qualifies as an intended third-party beneficiary.”); Alpine Cnty., Cal. v. … A finding of third party beneficiary status creates a waiver of sovereign immunity in disputes before this court, and the traditional view is that “[w]aivers of sovereign immunity are construed narrowly.” Hinck v.
Cited 2 timesPublished554 F.2d 427 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 20, 1977
However, the regulations provide no specific machinery for processing or settling disputes between an agency and its employees as to whether or not a particular employment situation qualifies under the broad categories of … We think that the provisions of section 17 of the Executive Order and also paragraph S8-7g(3) of FPM 532-1, the Commission’s implementing regulation, demonstrate quite clearly that the use of the collective bargaining process
Superseded by statute, as recognized in Eugene T. Harris v. The United States of America and the United States Department of the ArmyCited 46 timesPublishedS. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 24, 2026
Steinman described as “foreign invaders”—antigens presented to the immune system—and the immune system sometimes cannot distinguish between the two. Id. … This contention is wholly reasonable and logical, for the evidence clearly establishes that medical science recognizes that infections can result in MOGAD.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished4 B.T.A. 619 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jul 31, 1926
The United States Supreme Court clearly stated the law in the case of *2239 Neale v. … The parties to this appeal have brought themselves clearly within the requirements here stated. *2241 Walker v. Neil, 117 Ga. 733 ; 45 S.E. 387 , was a suit in equity brought by Mrs.
Cited 0 timesPublishedKyong Truong v. United States Sec'y of Agriculture
30 Ct. Int'l Trade 1512 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 12, 2006
From the date of this notice, the Trade Act of 2002 required eligible shrimpers to file an application by February 28, 2005 to qualify for benefits. See id. … As such, even though the language in Autoalliance Int’l appears clearly irreconcilable with Irwin v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedHercules Inc. v. United States
36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,999 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 14, 1991
Clearly, the Government has overread the board’s decision. Nor should it be assumed that the Federal Circuit did not mean exactly what it said. … It typically establishes policy for, and provides guidance to the segments in their operations.
Cited 4 timesPublishedPresidential Powers Relating to the Situation in Iran
Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Nov 7, 1979
I think quite clearly it would. Mr. Solarz. … W hich means he could in effect establish an em bargo on exports to that country? Mr. Bingham. C orrect.
Cited 0 timesPublishedGeneral Tire & Rubber Co. v. Commissioner
29 T.C. 975 · United States Tax Court · Feb 27, 1958
The taxpayer seeks to qualify for relief under section 721 (a) (2) (C) on the basis of a class of income resulting from conducting research and development of tangible property during the period 1981 to 1940. … It was the first product which met the specifications of end users, established in 1932 and 1933.
Cited 0 timesPublishedEast Sea Seafoods LLC v. United States
714 F. Supp. 2d 1243 · United States Court of International Trade · May 27, 2010
Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), which clearly shows “that all entries [made by an East Sea entity] during these last 45 days of the POR were made by ESS JVC.” Remand Results at 14. … Clearly, Plaintiff has not done this.
Cited 0 timesPublished66 Fed. Cl. 551 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2005
Plaintiff, as the non-moving party, however, bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. … Although not clearly asserted in the Complaint, Plaintiff argues that she was induced to waive an opportunity to conduct a risk inspection/assessment of the Property and to enter into the Contract by misinformation provided
Cited 7 timesPublishedNorfolk & Western Railway Co. v. United States
843 F. Supp. 728 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 1, 1994
The user fees at issue in this case are clearly “charges” within the meaning of § 1514(a) and, therefore, are subject to protest under this subsection. … The record in this case clearly shows plaintiff satisfied this final requirement.
Cited 5 timesPublishedMario Diaz v. Servicios De Franquicia Pardo's S.A.C.
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Feb 16, 2007
, opposer relies on the last clause found in Article 7, arguing that this language implicitly refers to the rights and remedies created for foreign 8 Section 44 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1126 (1982), permits qualified … That Applicant May Have Known of Opposer’s Use of or Application to Register an Interfering Mark in the United States The evidence of record clearly establishes that there is no genuine issue
Cited 0 timesPublished61 T.C. 140 · United States Tax Court · Oct 31, 1973
In short nothing in the “bundle of rights” relinquished or transferred by petitioner qualifies as a capital asset and 'hence the entire consideration received therefor is taxable as ordinary income. Roscoe v. … Furthermore, paragraph (2) (A) clearly contemplates that if an employee’s reimbursable expense is deductible, the reimbursement will be included in gross income. See sec. 1.62-1 (f) (2), Income Tax Pegs.
Cited 17 timesPublishedNovarro v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2014
In rare cases, the activation of the immune system is misdirected and both the humoral and cellular arms of the immune system attack the nervous system. Id. … Tornatore’s credentials render this portion of his opinion generally unreliable, and I find that he is qualified to opine on the topic at hand.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 25, 2013
D’Esposito’s death to her receipt of the flu vaccine, although they were clearly 8 Although not specifically explained in Ms. … While timing is needed, timing alone is not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for two reasons. First, as a matter of law and logic, a sequence of events does not establish causation.
Cited 0 timesPublished68 T.C. 115 · United States Tax Court · Apr 27, 1977
Respondent is clearly wrong in his assertion that legal title did not pass until the deed was recorded. … of the Secretary, does clearly reflect income.
Cited 82 timesPublishedMusick v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 22, 2025
Thus, he bears the burden of establishing actual causation. … helps to establish that the Prevnar-13 vaccine was the but-for-cause of his condition.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCACI Field Services, Inc. v. United States
34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,339 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 17, 1987
During the April 21, 1987 review, CACI’s score was revised but apparently the technical proposal again qualified for a “Satisfactory” rating. … The executive privilege, however, is a qualified one. Kaiser, 141 Ct.Cl. at 49 , 157 F.Supp. at 946 .
Cited 27 timesPublishedYosemite Park & Curry Co. v. United States
582 F.2d 552 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1978
Yosemite National Park, with plaintiff establishing reasonable rates and prices for its goods and services. … Plaintiffs attempt to escape the 10 percent limit on cost-plus contracts by arguing that it should receive the 15 percent allowed on "experimental” contracts fails because, as defendant notes, nothing in the Agreement qualifies
Cited 46 timesPublishedDepartment of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Mar 27, 1997
Congress clearly provided that the phrase should be defined as “ in title II of the Social Security Act.” … They were designed for a purpose unique to the insur ance scheme established by the SSA — namely, to prevent the payment of social security benefits to those who, for a variety of reasons, have not paid into that system.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna