Case law

Review of Final Order in Alien Employer Sanctions Cases

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Dec 5, 1989

The statute also establishes an administrative scheme for prosecuting viola­ tions o f these subsections. … The regulations clearly provide that the CAHO’s order is the final order o f the Attorney General in an employer sanctions case. 28 C.ER. § 68.52(a)(1).

Laforge & Budd Construction Co. v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 566 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 2, 2001

Again, plaintiff ascribes that action to its being a small business lacking other qualified personnel to run the project it assigned to Mr. Abbott. … Defendant reads the record as clearly showing that its ability either to inquire into or apprise itself of the facts surrounding this case has been significantly impaired.

Cave Buttes, L.L.C. v. Comm'r

147 T.C. No. 10 · United States Tax Court · Sep 20, 2016

R asserted that C failed to attach a qualified appraisal report to its return and that it also failed to use a qualified appraiser. … a qualified appraiser.

In re Bergy

596 F.2d 952 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1979

, to establish a patent system. … This clearly establishes that the “biologically pure culture” of Claim 5 is not found in nature; it is the product of a microbiologist. Dr.

Marcus v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 16, 2025

She said she was clearly asked this question by Dr. Peterson, and she clearly said there was no trauma or inciting even leading to the onset of her pain.” Resp’t Ex. B at 6. However, the records from Dr. … of immune cells involved in the skin’s innate immune response are dendritic leukocytes: Langerhans cells in the epidermis and dermal dendritic cells in the dermis.”

McClintock-Trunkey Co. v. Commissioner

19 T.C. 297 · United States Tax Court · Nov 24, 1952

Opper, Judge: Petitioner’s contributions to its employees’ profit-sharing trust in excess of the amounts called for by the previously approved plan are a clearly forbidden deduction under section 23 (p) (1) (C), Internal … As in Produce Reporter Co., “We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the respondent’s regulations” requiring that a trust secure respondent’s approval before it can qualify for exemption under section 165 (a).

AABCO, Inc. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,810 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1983

As such, it is a qualified party under the EAJA that may apply for attorney’s fees and costs. … Clearly Government litigation counsel was not in any position at that hearing to evaluate the case from any substantive standard.

Shriver v. Commissioner

85 T.C. 1 · United States Tax Court · Jul 1, 1985

Respondent clearly did not rest merely on the presumption of correctness in issuing his notice of deficiency. … However, we have found that the evidence established that the informant’s statements were not trustworthy.

Cloud v. Commissioner

97 T.C. 613 · United States Tax Court · Dec 9, 1991

Congress clearly intended that direct contributions to political organizations remain nondeductible under section 162. 6 In sum, review of these four categories of nondeductible expenses establishes that whether a payment … Public policy, in other circumstances, generally is not sufficiently clearly defined to justify the disallowance of deductions.

Disabled American Veterans v. United States

650 F.2d 1178 · United States Court of Claims · May 20, 1981

Such a position is in fundamental conflict with the clearly established and well-defined procedure found in the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury Regulations. See, e.g., section 6402; section 7422(a); Treas. … This is not to say that actual competition must be established in order to have UBTI.

Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy's Reservation v. United States

85 Fed. Cl. 646 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 10, 2009

The facts of this case are analogous to cases in which courts have clearly stated that it is outside the scope of them authority to entertain disputes brought by individuals contesting Congressional determinations as to tribal … At the outset, the court notes that it has already found that Proposed Intervenors’ interest in gaining status as PJF beneficiaries does not qualify as a direct and immediate legally protectable interest in this litigation

Robinson v. Mansfield

21 Vet. App. 545 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 29, 2008

The Federal Circuit did not qualify VA’s obligation to assist a claimant, nor does the Schroeder holding turn on the procedural posture of the case. … Among other things, the VCAA removed the requirement of former § 5107(a) that a claimant first establish a well-grounded *560 claim before VA was to begin providing assistance.

Estate of Smith v. Commissioner

79 T.C. 313 · United States Tax Court · Aug 16, 1982

Such activity alone does not qualify as medical care, and the retirement community did not regularly engage in providing the type of care or services indicated in section 213(e)(1). Rose v. … The facts in this case clearly distinguish it from Counts v. Commissioner, supra, wherein we held that the expenses of housing the taxpayer’s father in a nursing home were deductible as medical expenses.

Graves v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 7, 2022

Because the Tucker Act only waives sovereign immunity and does not create substantive rights, a plaintiff must identify a separate source of law that can be fairly interpreted as creating a right to money damages. … For example, a physical takings claim regularly accrues on “the date on which the plaintiff’s land has been clearly and permanently taken.” Boling, 220 F.3d at 1370 (citing Seldovia Native Assoc., Inc. v.

07-39 442

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 31, 2015

(Another VA examination is not necessary, as diagnoses of spina bifida occulta (remote), degenerative joint disease and congenital hyperlordosis of sacrum are already established). … (Another VA examination is not necessary, as diagnoses of residuals of a concussion with problems with attention and concentration are already established).

B.E. Meyers & Co. v. United States

41 Fed. Cl. 729 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 27, 1998

has not been addressed by the Court of Federal Claims or by the Federal Circuit in the context of a patent-infringement case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 . 6 The Third Circuit has stated the following test: In order to establish … “Where attorneys for parties having a mutual interest in litigation exchange their work product, it remains protected by a qualified privilege.” Id.

Short v. United States

661 F.2d 150 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 23, 1981

Cl. 870 , 486 F.2d 561 (1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 961 (1974) (the 1973 decision), we held the government liable to qualified Indians of the Reservation who were entitled to but did not receive shares in this income, and … Here, as in the motion to substitute, the defendants have not shown that our prior decisions were clearly erroneous or, indeed, erroneous at all.

In re Consolidation of State & National Banks

12 Pa. D. & C. 626 · Pennsylvania Department of Justice · Jul 30, 1929

Legnard, deceased, of which estate the bank and trust company had been appointed and duly qualified as executor prior to its consolidation with the national bank. … The Act of Congress clearly provides that the consolidation shall take place under the charter of the existing national bank, and the decision in the Massachusetts case clearly holds that the corporate existence of the state

Pep Boys, Manny, Moe & Jack v. Fisher Bros.

94 F.2d 204 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1938

On November 5, 1935, the Examiner of Interferences rendered his decision, holding that the mark “CAN O’ GOLD” was not descriptive of motor lubricating oils, and that opposer “cannot here qualify under this clause.” … It is clearly sufficient if it appears from the notice that he relies upon confusion in trade under the Trade-mark Act of February 20, 1905 as one of his grounds of opposition.

Spellissy v. United States

103 Fed. Cl. 274 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 2, 2012

“The actions for which the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity are actions pursuant to contracts with the United States, actions to recover illegal exactions of money by the United States, and actions brought pursuant to … Plaintiff has failed to show by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.