Case law

Shades, Inc. v. United States

4 Ct. Int'l Trade 113 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 14, 1982

While the witness admitted he was not an expert in the lumber industry, he was well qualified as an engineer. … The statutory requirement of parallelism imposed by headnote 2(a) applies only to lumber “in its original sawed condition * * *” [emphasis supplied], and the record clearly establishes that “in their original sawed condition

Hayden v. Commissioner

112 T.C. 115 · United States Tax Court · Mar 19, 1999

The deduction is clearly prohibited by statute, and petitioner was aware that Federal income taxes cannot be deducted. … Leddos qualifies as a so-called small partnership under sec. 6231(a)(1)(B), and the partnership provisions of secs. 6221 through 6233 do not apply.

Gus Blass Co. v. Commissioner

9 T.C. 15 · United States Tax Court · Jul 8, 1947

The petitioner contends that the Commissioner’s acts herein are tantamount to approval of a request by it to change to the accrual method; that its income from installment sales can not be clearly reflected on any other basis … In his brief he concedes that the evidence establishes that $10,000 is a reasonable allowance for services of Jesse Heiman and for services of Hugo Heiman.

National Sanitary Rag Co. v. United States

23 C.C.P.A. 200 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 25, 1935

cross-examination he said that he had never bought or sold wiping rags, but that he had learned as much about them as those who had; and that, although his idea of a “wiper” was a rag “one foot square,” he would have to qualify … The burden was upon appellant to establish that the involved rags were chiefly used in paper-making.

Mandril v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 8, 2024

Petitioner alleged that he suffered from an acute, immune-mediated vaccine injury featuring myositis as a result of receiving seasonal influenza and Tdap vaccines on April 3, 2019. Pet. at 1. … Petitioner did provide evidence from a treating neurologist noting her impression of a resolved vaccine-related immune mediated myositis.

Hunt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 3, 2026

To establish entitlement to compensation under the Program, a petitioner is required to establish each of the three prongs of Althen by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … This evidence clearly demonstrates molecular mimicry; however, the cross-reactivity between these two proteins is substantively different than the reaction that Dr. Steinman proposed in this case.

NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United States

104 F. Supp. 2d 110 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 5, 2000

Indeed, § 1677a(c)’s language clearly provides that subsection (c) adjustments must be made to the starting price used to “establish” EP. … Also, the language of § 1677a(c) as well as § 1677a(d) clearly provides that subsection (c) and (d) adjustments must be made to the starting price used to “establish” CEP.

Huntleigh USA Corp. v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 440 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 7, 2005

“Jurisdiction over any suit against the Government requires a clear statement from the United States waiving sovereign immunity, together with a claim falling within the terms of the waiver.” United States v. … Plaintiff asserts that it has a protected property interest in its business assets, including its long-running contracts with established customers, goodwill, and going-concern value.

Auborn v. Commissioner

93 T.C. 612 · United States Tax Court · Nov 20, 1989

According to petitioner, the statute does not explicitly require inclusion in income of an otherwise qualified award simply because the award is made by a recipient’s employer. … It is well established that petitioners bear the burden of proof on this issue. Bixby v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 757, 791-792 (1972).

Everett v. United States

169 Ct. Cl. 11 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1965

On the contrary, the evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff’s performance of his duties was over all highly satisfactory. (3) Driving an automobile on official business with .an expired driver's license. … On the contrary, the evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff’s cooperation with his fellow employees was excellent. ' (5) Furnishing conflicting statements with regard to management of real estate.

Optimization Consulting, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 22, 2013

-27- determination that Goldbelt Glacier’s proposal qualified it as within the competitive range. Def.’s Mot. at 23. … Of the remaining seven offerors, four were determined to qualify for the competitive range.

Kirwin v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 497 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 21, 1991

On October 31, 1986, the BCNR decided that plaintiff had failed to establish a material error or injustice in his records, and thus it denied his application to have his service records corrected. … However, this argument goes to the merits of plaintiffs claim, as plaintiff is entitled, under section 1201, to disability pay for a qualifying disability unless it is lawfully withheld. Sawyer v.

McAfee, Inc. v. United States

111 Fed. Cl. 696 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 17, 2013

Nevertheless, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. McNutt v. … The court in Savantage determined that the government’s standardization decision qualified as a “procurement” through which the plaintiff could establish jurisdiction. 81 Fed.

Pentcholov v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2016

That rate is in turn determined 4 by the “forum rule,” which bases the award rate on rates paid to similarly qualified attorneys in the forum in which the relevant court … In all stages of the lodestar calculation, I must determine if the fees applicant has established the reasonableness of the billing rate and work performed. Mares v.

Ideal Innovations, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 2, 2018

Therefore, Plaintiffs clearly “knew or should have known” of their potential injury before 2012. B. … As explained above, Plaintiffs clearly had knowledge of a potential injury by mid-2008.

Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. v. United States

2019 CIT 151 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 2, 2019

At issue is whether an exporter in a non-market economy (“NME”) 1 has adequately established the independence from governmental control necessary to qualify for a separate antidumping duty rate apart from the countrywide … Unlike other minutes on the record which clearly indicate that a Board vote was held, this piece of evidence did not include any indication that a formal vote was held. Oral Argument.

Electronic Enterprises, Inc. v. United States

100 F. Supp. 944 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 6, 1951

This expression refers to the joint Army-Navy cooperative testing services set up due to a shortage of qualified inspectors during the war period, to facilitate tube testing and inspection. … We therefore conclude that the evidence of the contract negotiations fails to establish that plaintiff was aware of the necessity for securing type approval on the tubes it was to produce.

Ullman v. United States

64 Fed. Cl. 557 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2005

App. at 56 (4/3/00 letter from plaintiff to Steve Bucci, IRS Collection Division) (“When I signed the agreement on 1/25/95 Agent Eugene Clarke told me (very clearly) ‘if your pension is reduced, we will reduce your monthly … In its memorandum, defendant argues that plaintiff does not qualify as a “recipient” under the statute for two reasons.

Moreno v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 387 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 3, 2008

In addition, 5 C.F.R. § 610.111 (a)(2) (2000) requires that “[t]he head of each agency ... shall establish ... … Here, by contrast, the plaintiffs clearly could have sued any time after the pay periods during which they worked a sixth day per week at FLETC but did not receive overtime for it.

Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United States

81 Fed. Cl. 752 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 8, 2008

Plaintiffs take the position that liability under the holding in Franconia is established because Mr. … The plain meaning of this language could not any more clearly confer on plaintiffs the right to prepay “at any time” and at their option.