Case law

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.

Sand Products Corp. v. United States

128 F. Supp. 742 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 8, 1955

Another qualified witness for the plaintiff estimated the cost of reproduction at the time of taking as $1,932,380. … Costs of such painting, as was done to the hull, and work on the engines after taking are not established.

Amber Refining, Inc. v. Occidental Oil & Gas Co.

961 F.2d 225 · Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1992

We will not set aside a factual finding of the district court unless it is clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). … Although this is not the only permissible view of the evidence, we cannot say that it is clearly erroneous.

Gruber ex rel. Gruber v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

91 Fed. Cl. 773 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 25, 2010

However, a reduction to an explicit billing claim by Petitioners’ counsel must be explained clearly in the Special Master’s decision and reasonably based on the documents and facts of the particular case. Ms. … White, one of Petitioners' expert witnesses, juvenile dermatomyositis can be described as a “rare autoimmune disease [] belonging to the group of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (MM),” which are "diseases te which the immune

Wittmann v. United States

37 Fed. Cl. 239 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 3, 1997

The district court dismissed the misrepresentation claim on the ground that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for the tort of misrepresentation and dismissed the Bivens claim on the ground that the existence … Indeed, prior to the auction plaintiff apparently had a copy of the notice of sale which stated clearly that the property was being offered subject to any prior valid outstanding encumbrances and that no claim would be considered

The Brinkmann Corporation v. Mag Instrument, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jul 28, 2010

Brinkmann is qualified as an expert witness. Brinkmann, on the other hand, contends that Mr. … The secondary terms in each mark, STAR and MAXFIRE, are clearly different in sound and appearance.

Ross Glove Co. v. Commissioner

60 T.C. 569 · United States Tax Court · Jul 23, 1973

Eoss of 4,474 shares of common stock, to Carla Eoss, 4,298 shares, and 1 qualifying share to each of five Bahamian residents. … Eoss’ newly born son, Hugh Andrew, each owned (except for qualifying shares) 50 percent of the nonvoting common stock, and Mr. Eoss (except for qualifying shares) owned all of the voting stock.

Consolidated Fibers, Inc. v. United States

2017 CIT 157 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 27, 2017

To meet its burden, the government must “show that it was clearly reasonable in asserting its position, including its position at the agency level, in view of the law and the facts.” Gavette v. Office of Pers. … The facts and circumstances of this protest are identical to those raised in International Trading: the importer entered at a low rate; the final results of review published in the Federal Register established

Grey v. United States

21 Cl. Ct. 285 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 9, 1990

Later immigrants and settlers established farms and displaced the Indians. … The Supreme Court has held that “the [Reclamation] Act clearly provided that state water law would control in the appropriation and later distribution of the water.” California v.

Laborant, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 10, 2026

The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to allow a suit for money damages, United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983), but it does not confer any substantive rights on a plaintiff. … a showing that the plaintiff qualifies for that payment by satisfying designated statutory or regulatory requirements.”

Asiatic Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner

31 B.T.A. 1152 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 31, 1935

The remaining three shares were owned by individuals to qualify them to act as directors of Norco. The tax basis of said 39,997 shares in the hands of the petitioner was, on January 8, 1929, $3,999,700. … There is nothing in the present case to establish that the activities were confined to the narrow scope that existed in the cited cases.

The Brinkmann Corporation v. MAG INSTRUMENT, INC.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jul 28, 2010

Brinkmann is qualified as an expert witness. Brinkmann, on the other hand, contends that Mr. … The secondary terms in each mark, STAR and MAXFIRE, are clearly different in sound and appearance.

Ingham Regional Medical Center v. United States

126 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 22, 2016

If an individual claim qualifies for payment under the TRICARE Program, then the claim is reimbursed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 32 C.F.R. § 199.14. … The language of the Release clearly and expressly incorporated the terms of the April 25, 2011 Letter.

BATISTA

21 I. & N. Dec. 955 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1997

This accessory after the fact con- viction is clearly related to the overall drug-trafficking endeavor. … V 1993) clearly relates to the underlying drug-trafficking conviction.

Nippon Express USA, Inc. v. United States

28 Ct. Int'l Trade 1845 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 4, 2004

The Secretary of Defense included this legislation in the legislative program of the National Military Establishment. … Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U.S. 707 (1972), and later applied in the context of states’ narrow constitutional immunity from taxation. See Massachusetts, 435 U.S. at 467.

Rowan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 9, 2015

Petitioner argues that defendant’s expert witnesses were not qualified to critique Dr. Shoenfeld’s theory because neither Dr. Cetaruk nor Dr. Whitton reviewed Ms. … Petitioner attempts to argue that she must have had a genetic predisposition because she “clearly developed a genetic disease.”

Friend v. Commissioner

40 B.T.A. 768 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 19, 1939

The petitioners, residents of Chicago, Ill., are the duly qualified and acting trustees of the trust estate created under the will of Henry Friend, deceased, who died a resident of Chicago, on August 1, 1932. … At the time that the will was drawn, and at the time of the decedent’s death, it was contemplated that the executors named in the will would be discharged and the trust estates established under the will would be created

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

23 Cl. Ct. 726 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 9, 1991

Whether a prior illness or injury was aggravated or a new illness brought on, the illness must have manifested itself within the stipulated time period in order for the child to qualify for compensation. 6 When there are … The deleted language establishes that the significant aggravation must occur within the stipulated time period. .

Sekri, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 1, 2023

Assessment of attorney’s fees is inappropriate when a party merely bases its arguments on an “‘erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.’” Level 3 Commc’ns, 724 F. … The applicant for attorney’s fees bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award. Rumsey v. Dep’t of Just., 866 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Department of Justice Views on the Proposed Constitution Drafted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the U.S. Virgin Islands

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Feb 23, 2010

Districting plans with such deviations may not be “automatically immune from constitutional attack,” but they are at least “presumptively constitutional, and the burden lies on the plaintiffs to rebut that presump- 7 Article … XII, § 1 (indicating that “[t]he Government shall establish laws to govern the employment of children under the age of fifteen”); and it fails to specify whether many of the rights it establishes apply only to government