Case law

L'Eggs Products, Inc. v. United States

704 F. Supp. 1127 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 12, 1989

Hence, the defendant contends that the tubes do not fulfill the requirements of sections (a) and (c) of item 807.00, TSUS, and, consequently, do not qualify for an allowance. … Surgikos, however, is clearly distinguishable from the present case.

Walliser v. Commissioner

72 T.C. 433 · United States Tax Court · Jun 7, 1979

Clearly, the tours were of a type generally considered vacation trips and, thus, under the objective test, constituted entertainment for the purposes of section 274(a). … Fla. 1973), affd. in an unpublished order 503 F.2d 1402 (5th Cir. 1974). 8 We also hold that the petitioners’ trips do not qualify as entertainment “associated with” the active conduct of a trade or business.

Berry v. United States

86 Fed. Cl. 750 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2009

Clearly, the clerk of each court accepted their respective filing. … However, as is well-accepted, the Tucker Act by itself does not create substantive rights; it is simply a jurisdictional statute that waives sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources, such as a statute or contract

Shaw v. Gober

10 Vet. App. 498 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 6, 1997

Section 7263(d) establishes the scope of such review by providing that the Court “may order a reduction in the fee called for in the agreement if it finds that the fee is excessive or unreasonable” and prohibits further judicial … Section 506 prohibits payment from the two sources only for the “same work”; it does not cover the situation where the work is clearly different.

Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 23, 2026

Petitioner reported she had to suppress her right eye vision to see clearly. Id. at 21. Dr. Clark diagnosed diplopia (double vision). Id. at 22. … She is “no longer able to hear music clearly; concerts and movies no longer are enjoyable.” Id. And she has difficulties communicating with her family. Id.

Southwest Welding & Manufacturing Company v. The United States

373 F.2d 982 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1967

Equally clearly, the quoted language from the Supplement refers to price adjustments for other particulars made necessary by the change order. … The contracting officer was under no duty to issue a second supplement increasing the price previously established.

PT. Zinus Glob. Indonesia v. United States

628 F. Supp. 3d 1252 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 20, 2023

In order to establish a profit cap, Commerce resorted to facts available. Id. … Commerce disregarded the financial statement of Ecos because it contained a qualified audit. IDM at 22–23.

Delgado v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 17, 2025

Novakovic further noted that Petitioner’s IgE was high and would qualify her for Xolair. Id. at 608. She improved with treatment and was discharged home on September 28, 2015. Id. at 539. … When asked if Petitioner’s reaction would qualify as anaphylaxis, Dr.

United States v. Texas Instruments Inc.

545 F.2d 739 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1976

The uncontroverted evidence in that case further established that physical, chemical, and electrical properties of the wire were not changed during the course of assembly of the transistor. … Thus the lines of separation between the individual chips were clearly defined before exportation. All that remained to be done was the separation of the individual chips along the provided lines.

HO

18 I. & N. Dec. 152 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1981

Therefore, it has not been established that the beneficiary qualifies as a "child" under section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Act- to be eligible for immigration benefits under section 203(a)(5) of the Act. … We note also that none of the authors clearly cites any statute in which these requirements appear.

Brown v. United States

36 Fed. Cl. 290 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 8, 1996

Petitioner has not established that a notice of deficiency has been sent to him so as to form a basis for an appeal to this Court for the taxable year 1990. … It is a well established rule of law that contracts entered into under duress will not be enforced by the courts.

Western Co. of North America v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 51 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 21, 2002

Thus, the determination of whether a taxpayer is eligible for the tax credit at issue is predicated on whether the taxpayer qualifies for a tax refund under § 6427. … In this case, Plaintiff would clearly not be eligible for a refund under § 6427 even if § 6427(k) were not in the statute.

Mepham v. Commissioner

3 B.T.A. 549 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 3, 1926

On the same date, to wit, December 4, 1919, all of the stock was issued to Williams, except four qualifying shares. … The testimony clearly establishes the fact that the taxpayer, in disposing of his business, sold not only the tangible property used in the business, but also the good will and other intangible assets, including the secret

Last Chance Mining Co. v. United States

12 Cl. Ct. 551 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 26, 1987

The Contract Claim The statute and regulations in issue clearly do not grant a right to monetary relief against the United States. … Clearly there is no “public use” resulting from negligence or malfeasance in the conduct of the regulatory scheme.

Moore v. Commissioner

85 T.C. 72 · United States Tax Court · Jul 25, 1985

You have not established that your alleged payment of a Distributorship Fee qualifies under Section 1253 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. … The evidence establishes that there was no compliance herein with this provision.

Tidewater Contractors, Inc. v. United States

131 Fed. Cl. 372 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 30, 2017

Plaintiff’s Argument In the instant action, plaintiff argues that, under Hamlet, the Manual “clearly qualifies as binding agency directive” because “there is no evidence in the record that FHWA lacked the authority … Plaintiff argues that the FHWA clearly intended to establish a binding rule because the Manual specifically “stat[es] that ‘[w]here there is a conflict between a contact and this manual, the contract will control,’” and also

Effect of the Alienage Restriction in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 on the Provision of Stafford Act Assistance in the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Jan 19, 2001

[inter alia] the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency,” under the terms established in a separate agreement. 99 Stat. at 1816. … V. 1999), the definition of qualified aliens does not explicitly include citizens of the FSM and RMI.

David A. Mays v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 256 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 22, 2012

Since the veteran did not enter active military service prior to January 1, 1978, he does not have qualifying service for educational benefits under Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 34, and his claim remains denied … The Board found that "the Veteran can only establish entitlement to benefits available at the time that he served." R. at 146.

Estate of Smith v. United States

103 Fed. Cl. 533 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 13, 2012

Essentially, Section 7422(a) functions as a waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity in tax refund suits. See Chicago Milwaukee Corp. v. … The Supreme Court also has written that “administrative *551 implementation of a particular statutory provision qualifies for Chevron deference when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to

Gonzalez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 28, 2015

.- S.M. on March 28, 2012, including an immunization against pertussis, actually caused M.A. … Further, the record does not contain sufficient persuasive evidence establishing that the alleged injury that M.A.