Case law

Applicability of Anti-Lottery Laws to Simultaneous Oil and Gas Leasing Procedures

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Apr 7, 1980

Money paid for the opportunity to participate, of course, generally would qualify as consid­ eration. … Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 542 (1943), the Court emphasized that criminal statutes must be given “careful scrutiny lest those be brought within its reach who are not clearly included. . . .”

Alderman Building Co., Inc.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Apr 28, 2022

As a partial waiver of sovereign immunity, the EAJA is to be strictly construed in favor of the United States. Ardestani v. I.N.S., 502 U.S. 129,137 (1991). I. … This is particularly applicable here, where the established law allowed the contractor to prove standby without an explicit order; specifically, by indirect evidence. 2.

Whelan v. United States

34 Cust. Ct. 208 · United States Customs Court · Jun 2, 1955

Frost, both of whom had many years of experience in the wood fiber industry and were exceptionally well qualified to discourse upon the subject of hardboard, the former as Director of Development and Research for the Masonite … Granted its properties differ in certain essentials from those of other paper or pulpboards, as noted so clearly in the case of Masonite Corporation v.

Nielsen-Dillingham Builders, J.V. v. United States

43 Fed. Cl. 5 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 6, 1999

Reference to manufacturers and suppliers is intended to establish the standards of performance and quality.” 1 The paragraphs that follow the *8 foregoing mandate establish the technical and performance standards for “Workstation … A fact qualifies as material if it would affect the outcome of the case. See id. at 248 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 .

SANDOVAL

17 I. & N. Dec. 70 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1979

A criminal may be given immunity for past conduct, but is never licensed to commit future crimes. … It has relied only on clearly untainted evidence.

Compliance Corp. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,991 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1990

United States, 719 F.2d 1567 (Fed.Cir.1983), which the Claims Court read as holding that an otherwise qualified bidder may not be disqualified based on a mere “appearance of impropriety.” … The establishment of standards is not feasible under such circumstances.

Farley v. United States

581 F.2d 821 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 14, 1978

Grinnell, 294 U.S. 153 (1935), it had already been clearly recognized that an event subsequent to the decedent’s death, an event controlled by his beneficiaries, can determine the inclusion or not of certain assets within … The classifications in section [202], including the third class, were established prior to the Supreme Court’s holding in Riggs v. Del Drago * * *.

Hynning v. United States

141 Ct. Cl. 486 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 5, 1958

The record in this case does not establish that his suspension was unlawful, and such a finding is not a prerequisite to his right to recover back pay under the Act of August 26, 1950. See O’Brien v. … We are of the opinion that the 1950 Act set forth a formula for the computation of the back pay which a person might receive thereunder and under that formula, as clearly indicated in the statute, a reinstated employee such

Flensburger Dampfercompagnie v. United States

59 F.2d 464 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 8, 1932

hereafter the equality shall not be reciprocated in the ports of Prussia and her dominions, the President may issue his proclamation, declaring that fact, and thereupon the section preceding shall cease to be in force,” clearly … The plaintiff to recover must establish a right under the statutes.

Estate of Stewart v. Commissioner

52 T.C. 830 · United States Tax Court · Aug 14, 1969

The sole issue for our determination is whether the remainder interests in two trusts established by the decedent qualify for a charitable deduction pursuant to section 2055 1 because of the investment and management discretion … question is answered in the negative, then it would seem that each standard set forth in respondent’s regulations will have been met since, aside from the existence of the discretionary powers, the remainder shares are clearly

Alloys & Chemicals Co. v. United States

56 Cust. Ct. 38 · United States Customs Court · Jan 10, 1966

Although, in our opinion, the evidence offered in said Gallagher & Ascher case is clearly distinguishable from that at bar, the court is inclined to accept defendant’s concession with respect thereto insofar as the merchandise … Ct. 440 , Abstract 64128, we were led to say— In the case at bar, aside from the testimony that the instant merchandise was bought as scrap and sold as scrap, there is not a scintilla of proof from any qualified witness to

Plant v. Commissioner

30 B.T.A. 133 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Mar 20, 1934

Eogers, died in 1908, devising his plantation in Texas to the Texas Guarantee & Trust Co. in trust, which company declined to qualify and the petitioner, John D. … This is fully and clearly shown in our findings of fact.

MVM, Inc. v. United States

46 Fed. Cl. 126 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 1999

the actions of the United States in awarding the contract were: *130 (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The United States maintains that the Administrative Record clearly shows what the CO did.

Penn Yan Agway Cooperative, Inc. v. The United States

417 F.2d 1372 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 14, 1969

. § 1134d (a) (3), to qualify plaintiff cooperative to borrow from the bank. Obviously, plaintiff had not acquired any of such stock previously. … The Committee reports expressly stated that “Viewed from such a taxpayer’s standpoint, the excess appears clearly to be expenditures which he must incur in order to sell the mortgage paper he holds.”

Marathon Targets, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 21, 2025

Brooks had “clearly manufactured” the evidence to support his company’s use of the protected information to challenge the TMIT award. See AR 3464. … The Government and MVP respond that the requirements are clearly laid out in the PWS. See ECF No. 49 at 31; ECF No. 50 at 38–39.

Cox v. Comm'r

126 T.C. 237 · United States Tax Court · May 3, 2006

We agreed this TP needed an OIC, but I explained why he could not qualify now. Rep. said he agreed they would have to look down the road for an OIC in the future. … In conclusion, the facts of these cases do not establish any abuse of discretion.

Strong v. United States

518 F.2d 556 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 25, 1975

To qualify for treatment under “joint and amicable” occupancy, the relationship of the Indian groups must be extremely close. We described just such a relationship in Sac & Fox Tribe v. United States, 179 Ct. … These standards were clearly summarized in Miami Tribe v. United States, 146 Ct. Cl. 421, 439 , 175 F.

Stapp Towing Inc. v. United States

40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,839 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 27, 1995

However, the obligation timely and clearly to establish a contractor’s capability to perform a contract lies with the offeror. 48 C.F.R. § 9.103 (e) (1994). … Abdnor, 933 F.2d 261, 264 (5th Cir.1990) (according great deference to SBA’s interpretation and application of its regulation on qualifying as small business); C & G Excavating, Inc. v.

Fox v. Commissioner

61 T.C. 704 · United States Tax Court · Mar 7, 1974

Ten shares of the Bank of Otterville stock were unencumbered by the pledge so that petitioners could qualify as directors of that bank. … All the facts are established by Court judgments. The argument lacks merit.

Ricks v. United States

65 Fed. Cl. 826 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 16, 2005

they may stay on active duty until they qualify for retirement. 10 U.S.C. §§ 631 , 632 (2000). … As the Christian court recognized: “The doctrine of ‘harmless error’ is a well-established settled principle of federal law.” 337 F.3d at 1342 (discussing Texas v.