Case law

Bacharach Industrial Instrument Co. v. United States

2 Cust. Ct. 306 · United States Customs Court · Apr 17, 1939

You make no adjustment,” although “you sometimes have to slide this in or out,” or, in other words— You adjust the lens at times in order to clearly determine that the instrument is sighted definitely on the object whose … In this case the testimony of plaintiff's witness, a well-qualified expert, stands unrebutted.

Vargas v. United States

114 Fed. Cl. 226 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 27, 2014

The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to allow a suit for money damages, United States v. … Hurtado clearly alleges in her complaint that she dealt with officials with such authority.

Willis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 2, 2025

A.W. was referred to a neurologist and advised to refrain from immunizations until the neurology evaluation was completed. Id. When Dr. … It is clearly established that secretarial work “should be considered as normal overhead office costs included within the attorneys’ fee rates.” Rochester v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 379, 387 (1989); Dingle v.

Martin Ice Cream Co. v. Comm'r

110 T.C. 189 · United States Tax Court · Mar 17, 1998

Wegener stated that, in the wake of those negotiations, Háagen-Dazs “clearly * * * [had its] work cut out concerning the financial issues raised by Section 4.5 of the proposed agreement.” Mr. … Petitioner presented no evidence to establish the adjusted basis of assets transferred to SIC in the section 351 exchange.

Dakota Tribal Industries v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 295 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 3, 1995

The non-moving party bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.Cir.1988). 2. … Relying on the “acknowledged privity of contract” upon which plaintiffs claims were clearly grounded, id. at 525, 527 , Judge Gibson concluded that an action for breach of contract would lie.

Mlb Transportation, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 2025

There is no evidence in the record that the VA obtained a Supplier Qualifier Report on MLB prior to contract award. … The proposal submitted by MB clearly states that it is “currently a . . . service disabled veteran company.” [ECF 20-1] at 194 (emphasis added).

Thomas H. Askins, Jr. v. United States

113 Fed. Cl. 283 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 5, 2013

The rule is not designed to provide class actions with a special immunity from statutes of limitations, as would result were subsequent class actions to be filed during the extended limitations period once the suspension … Regardless of whether one agrees with that analysis of the relevant precedents, the decision was clearly based on “the appropriateness of the substantive claims for certification,” McKowan, 295 F.3d at 389, and did not depend

Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States

18 Ct. Int'l Trade 740 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 11, 1994

It is established that U.S. selling expenses are presumed to be direct and the burden of proving otherwise is on the respondent. Timken Co. v. United States, 11 CIT 786 , 804, 673 F. … This clearly qualifies as additional material or labor and a “process of assembly.”

Micrecord Corporation v. The United States

361 F.2d 1000 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 10, 1966

In short, plaintiff has failed to establish the essential elements of either liability or damages. … The evidence, moreover, does not establish that plaintiff was in fact misled by the accused contract language.

Freed v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 715 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 30, 1996

If subject matter jurisdiction is questioned, the non-moving party bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction. Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748 . … Rather, it waives the United States’ sovereign immunity when an independent substantive right exists and when certain conditions are met. United States v.

Moke America LLC v. American Custom Golfcars, Inc. aka ACG, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Apr 21, 2020

Applicant objects to Exhibit B because Opposer did not clearly label or identify the document. (49 TTABVUE 24). … Rome is not qualified as a competent witness to properly authenticate Mini Mania’s records, to testify to what the data in the documents is intended to reflect, when the documents were

Walt Disney, Inc. v. Commissioner

97 T.C. 221 · United States Tax Court · Aug 5, 1991

Furthermore, an ongoing “substantial interest” requirement is clearly inconsistent with the consolidated return regulation. … Even apart from the shortcomings inherent in respondent’s necessarily vague articulation of the step transaction doctrine in the instant case, we believe the record is sufficient to establish the independent significance

Nicely v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 27, 2020

This Court’s jurisdiction to entertain claims and grant relief depends on the extent to which the United States has waived sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976). … Similar qualifiers exist for the Secretaries of the Navy and Army. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 5013(a), 7013(a) (providing for appointment from “civilian life” and imposing five-year qualifier after relief from active duty).

Ewing v. Commissioner

91 T.C. 396 · United States Tax Court · Aug 30, 1988

If there is a gain in your long position, you should qualify for capital gains treatment by going short in the same delivery month. … Thus, petitioners’ transactions are clearly within the purview of section 6621(c).

Herman D. Steel Co. v. United States

35 Cust. Ct. 197 · United States Customs Court · Dec 15, 1955

. *200 The brief of plaintiff indicates that the primary question for our determination is whether the subject merchandise is excluded from paragraph 352, in which it was classified, by virtue of the qualifying phrase contained … He stated that the part marked “A” represents the “complete automatic pinion cutting machine, number 2 pinion cutting machine”; that “B” represents a portion of the machine “in which it clearly shows the position of the cutters

Austin v. United States

124 Fed. Cl. 410 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 2, 2015

Standard for Summary Judgment The standards for granting summary judgment are well established. … Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, the term “workdays” in section 6 clearly refers to the workdays that have been designated as holidays under those sections.

Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. United States

178 F. Supp. 2d 1336 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 16, 2001

Moreover, although the Publications may not inherently qualify as legislative history, since it is undisputed that the ITC was responsible for establishing the Chemical Appendix, they are nonetheless persuasive. … The parties are clearly divided as to the significance of non-color ingredients in classifying the subject color preparations.

James J. Ritter v. The United States

393 F.2d 823 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 19, 1968

At the time of plaintiff’s move, it was IBM’s established policy to reimburse its employees for certain expenses incurred when they were required by IBM to transfer from one location to another on a permanent basis. … In summary, the Home Guarantee Policy was administered in the following manner: An employee’s home would be appraised by two independent, qualified appraisers.

Antarctic Support Associates v. United States

46 Fed. Cl. 145 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 28, 2000

It evaluated BR & S as “medium risk,” and commented that [...] was not qualified to perform the work, which contributed to its evaluation of BR & S as medium risk. Id. … However, “there is no requirement or implication ... that each of the factors must be present in order to establish arbitrary and capricious action by the government.”' See Prineville Sawmill Co. v.

Stephenson v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 63 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 1994

This was clearly noted in the original order, (see Stephenson, 33 Fed.Cl. at 75), and is reiterated here. … United States, 960 F.2d 1048, 1050 (Fed.Cir.1992) that condemnation statutes do not waive the government's immunity from property owners' "counterclaims” clearly does not prohibit a defendant from alleging an earlier date