Case law

MAIMON v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 3, 2025

Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“[T]he Government not only waived sovereign immunity for its own unlawful use or manufacture of a patented invention, but, in most cases, assumed liability when its contractors did so.”). … That statute clearly tracks Article III’s “case-or-controversy requirement,” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992), and thus imports its minimum standards.

Sylvan C. Coleman, Trustee for the Stockholders of United Carbon Company in Dissolution, and Ashland Oil & Refining Company v. The United States

388 F.2d 337 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 15, 1967

This agreement shows clearly it was not a purchase and sale agreement of produced gas as between Shamrock and the taxpayer. … In my opinion, the taxpayer qualifies in the instant case for the depletion allowance under the first two of these situations, and perhaps under the third, as well.

Orr v. Commissioner

78 T.C. 1059 · United States Tax Court · Jun 17, 1982

Moreover, the record clearly reveals that after ST was incorporated, ST, Inc., carried on the same business that had been carried on by ST. … The customer deposit liabilities at issue in the instant case, however, are clearly distinguishable from the accounts payable in Focht.

Cummins Inc. v. United States

377 F. Supp. 2d 1365 · United States Court of International Trade · May 17, 2005

This description clearly demonstrates that the crankshafts are “formed” and “shaped” after forging. … Thus, the goods did not qualify as goods originating in the territory of a NAFTA party.

Chitto v. United States

138 F. Supp. 253 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1956

of families and that they were clearly entitled in equity and justice to an additional amount for the damage and loss sustained by them. 1 *260 The Senate also found that 1-91 heads of families had qualified for reservations … In the absence of such allegations and of any proof to that effect, the Chitto group has failed to establish its right to any award whatsoever.

Amber Resources Co. v. United States

73 Fed. Cl. 738 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2006

Now pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (1) Establishing the Absence of Any Legally Cognizable “Benefits” to Be Offset Against Plaintiffs’ Restitution Award; (2) Establishing Their Entitlement to Recover … To the extent exploration has been unsuccessful, clearly the government has not benefitted.

AGOUR

26 I. & N. Dec. 566 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2015

Clearly, the language of these two statutes is different, in part because the waiver provision has changed substantially as a result of various amendments to the Act.12 B. … Consequently, the fraud waiver was interpreted to be available to any qualifying alien who used fraud to gain admission.

Watanabe Group v. United States

34 Ct. Int'l Trade 1545 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 22, 2010

Additionally, Watanabe’s sales were not individually examined by Commerce in the prior review because Watanabe was neither a voluntary nor a mandatory respondent in that review, although it qualified for a separate rate … This misreads Gallant, a separate AFA rate case, which clearly states that an “AFA rate must be a reasonably accurate estimate of the respondent’s actual rate.”

MAIMON v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 3, 2025

Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“[T]he Government not only waived sovereign immunity for its own unlawful use or manufacture of a patented invention, but, in most cases, assumed liability when its contractors did so.”). … That statute clearly tracks Article III’s “case-or-controversy requirement,” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992), and thus imports its minimum standards.

Sacred Heart Hospital v. United States

616 F.2d 477 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 20, 1980

The results of that survey clearly show that plaintiff administered over four times as much therapy as its closest competitor. See *398 note 6, supra. … Such a procedure was clearly contemplated by the statutory provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(v), and is within the plain meaning of the regulations.

American Airlines, Inc. v. United States

75 Fed. Cl. 237 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2006

So there clearly is at least one other way to collect, and we don’t know just what— THE COURT: What specifically do you want to do? … Therefore, to the extent the Government is now seeking discovery to establish a counterclaim or set off, that time has passed.

The Public Warehousing Company

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Aug 5, 2015

In moving for summary judgment, the government contended that the appeal turned on the interpretation of Mod. 27 which "clearly addressed the Government's liability for transportation fees in Iraq," and which "clearly established … The Government will not pay transportation fees beyond this established maximum."

Acone v. Comm'r

114 T.C.M. 219 · United States Tax Court · Aug 22, 2017

We think the record clearly indicates that, while Mr. … The taxpayer in Jones returned a dividend check that the State of Alaska issued to him as a resident, fairly clearly establishing his intent (the first and most important Sochurek factor) not to be a resident of Alaska

C.B.C. Super Markets, Inc. v. Commissioner

54 T.C. 882 · United States Tax Court · Apr 28, 1970

Cicio was the person who was acting for the corporation in both proceedings, criminal and civil, and because of this the corporation has clearly had its “day in court” on the fraud issue. … But if respondent had proved fraud by offering the same evidence which was used at the criminal trial, the corporation could not expect immunity because of the innocence of its minority shareholders. Bender v.

Mattoon & Co. v. United States

30 Cust. Ct. 228 · United States Customs Court · May 20, 1953

Opposed to this testimony, defendant offered the testimony of three qualified witnesses, all with many years’ experience in dealing in and handling waste materials. … D. 43976 (1930), the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals said: The term “woolen rags” in paragraph 1105 [of the Tariff Act of 1922] clearly includes all woolen rags, old and new. In E. A. Stone & Co. v.

General Aniline Works v. United States

9 Cust. Ct. 72 · United States Customs Court · Jul 1, 1942

All of the witnesses called, three on behalf of the plaintiff, and four on behalf of the defendant, were chemists, and all were evidently well qualified in their field. … Both of these appear to be clearly in error.

Supplementary Discussion of the President's Powers Relating to the Seizure of the American Embassy in Iran

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Nov 11, 1979

he President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Arm ed Forces into hostilities or into situations w here imminent involvem ent in hostilities is clearly … N either A ct has been invoked before, although there are well-established precedents for employing such controls under similar prior authority. E.g., Sardino v.

In Re Downstream Addicks and Barker (Texas) Flood-Control Reservoirs v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 2026

First, the Federal Circuit asked the Court to address whether the Induced Surcharges qualify as a temporary taking. Id. … In this case, where defendant is culpable for creating conditions it believes constituted an emergency, “the government immunity from liability under the necessity doctrine would stretch the doctrine too far.”

WECC, Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Apr 13, 2022

To receive an award, WECC must qualify as a party as defined by EAJA. … See Job Options, 11-1 BCA ¶ 34,663 at 170,761 (noting the Board has denied EAJA recovery when there were close factual questions that were not clearly established until after the hearing).

Amerace Esna Corp. v. United States

462 F.2d 1377 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1972

The evidence clearly shows that by September 8, 1957, defendant 'had terminated its procurement of Part B of the two-part flotation compounds. … With the finding that claim 7 is invalid, plaintiff admits that defendant can use Part A compounds or single-part compounds with immunity so long as Part B is not used along with Part A.