Case law

Rice Services, Ltd. v. United States

59 Fed. Cl. 619 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 13, 2004

The Federal Circuit disagreed: “the cited comments are clearly not sufficient to establish a judicial imprimatur and they do not constitute a ‘court-ordered change in the legal relationship’ of the parties as Buckhannon requires … [Wjhere the plaintiff secures a remand requiring further agency proceedings because of alleged error by the agency, the plaintiff qualifies as a prevailing party (1) without regard to the outcome of the agency proceedings

Davis v. Commissioner

64 T.C. 1034 · United States Tax Court · Sep 11, 1975

About a year before he established his own X-ray facility, Dr. … The technician employed by X-Ray was not trained or qualified to read or interpret X-ray film.

United States v. Perry Ryer & Co.

41 C.C.P.A. 18 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1953

It is contended, first, that “The evidence establishes that the involved device is ‘printing machinery,’ ” and, second, that “Legislative history in conjunction with the evidence establishes that the involved device is within … It is therefore clearly apparent that the air pressure does much more than accelerate the flow of the coloring matter.

Reunion, Inc. v. United States

90 Fed. Cl. 576 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 10, 2009

Howard Johnson Co., 386 F.Supp. 330, 333 (N.D.Ga.1974) (“A successful motion [to strike a defense] requires that the insufficiency of the defense be clearly apparent.”). … The Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity, but it does not by itself confer a right to recovery. United States v.

Doernbecher Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner

30 B.T.A. 973 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 21, 1934

. *986 The petitioner offered the testimony of witnesses to establish what amounts would constitute reasonable salaries for Green and John. … If title remained in John the stock clearly was outstanding.

Cosette Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 17, 2025

The Administrative Record here establishes that the contracting officer’s decision to establish a competitive range was “clearly unreasonable.” Birch & Davis, 4 F.3d at 973. … of establishing a competitive range here was unreasonable.

FCX, Inc. v. United States

531 F.2d 515 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1976

Section 1382(b) allows a nonexempt cooperative to reduce its taxable income by the payment of a qualifying patronage dividend, which is defined in Section 1388(a), quoted above. … Because Congress, in enacting Subchapter T, merely codified the prior administrative practice of the Commissioner, there is little basis on which to conclude that Congress intended to discard the long established method of

Olavarria & Co. v. United States

20 Cust. Ct. 197 · United States Customs Court · May 28, 1948

When he bought and sold these flavored sirups in the United States, he always qualified the product by the name of the flavoring present. - Plaintiffs second witness, Mr. … And, further: It is to be observed that Congress must have had clearly in mind a distinction between “sirups” and “mixtures containing sugar and water” and provided for them in different paragraphs.

Brancheau v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2024

Simpson maintained “the concept is clearly transferable to rare neurological events associated with other vaccines, such as TM following [flu] vaccination in the current case.” Pet. … Standards for Adjudication The Vaccine Act was established to compensate vaccine-related injuries and deaths. § 10(a).

Akanthos Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2020

That gap is too much in light of the court’s obligation to narrowly construe the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. … Second, plaintiff has not asserted claims that qualify as both direct and derivative based on the dual-nature exception.

Gay v. United States

116 Fed. Cl. 22 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 13, 2014

Gay did not have a treatable psychiatric condition, was rational, fully alert, thinking clearly and mentally responsible. … Gay qualified for a VA-disability rating relating to his PTSD did not alter its view of Mr.

Green Hospital v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 393 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 17, 1991

“Medically necessary” services are those “that are generally accepted by qualified professionals to be reasonable and adequate for the diagnosis and treatment of illness, injury, pregnancy, and mental disorders.” 32 C.F.R … Therefore, unless the agency’s interpretation of the CHAMPUS regulations is clearly unreasonable, the court should not disturb it. See United States v.

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 29, 2020

The Secretary’s order thus “established the 36,000- acre Chemehuevi Indian Reservation.” Id. … In extending the deemed-receipt date, however, the legislative history at least suggests that Congress did not intend to take a position on what qualified as an accounting, as a matter of law, sufficient to trigger the statute

Yankee Atomic Electric Company v. United States

125 Fed. Cl. 641 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2016

In the first set of cases, the government’s liability was established. See Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 249 (2006). … At trial, the court qualified her as an expert in dispositioning challenged properties. See Tr. at 306:8-16 (Richardson).

Fourth Amendment Implications of Military Use of Forward Looking Infrared Radars Technology for Civilian Law Enforcement

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Mar 4, 1992

Federal officers are entitled to “qualified immunity” from tort suits for actions taken in the course of their official duties. E.g., Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985); Harlow v. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), the Supreme Court explained that an officer is entitled to such immunity unless he violates a constitutional right that is “clearly established” at the time 14(....continued) S e e Smith

SHIRINIAN

12 I. & N. Dec. 392 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 1967

The daughter, while residing there, had obtained an education which qualified her for acceptance for graduate study in a Canadian university. … Clearly in• consistent with any claim of unwillingness or inability to return to the United Arab Republic because of race, religion, or political opin- ion, or of departure from that country because of persecution or fear

09-20 619

Board of Veterans' Appeals · Dec 29, 2017

In the revised statute, the term "chronic disability" was changed to "qualifying chronic disability," and the definition of "qualifying chronic disability" was expanded to include (a) undiagnosed illness, (b) a medically … In this regard, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) clearly show that beginning in December 2002, there were multiple reports of various joint pains of the ankles, elbow, feet, and knees.

Miller v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 4, 2021

In particular, Respondent argued that Petitioner has not established that he has idiopathic hypersomnia (“IH”). Id. at 3. … He could, in the end, only speculate that because some cases have been reported after viral illness, this suggests a possible immune etiology. Id.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 495 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 19, 2005

Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 , 110 S.Ct. 596 , 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (holding that the burden is on the party seeking to exercise jurisdiction by clearly alleging facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction). … Jan. 17, 2003) (entering judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of liability based on Federal Circuit decisions that clearly establish liability against the United States); Florida Power & Light Co. v.

Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. United States

169 F. Supp. 268 · United States Customs Court · Nov 21, 1958

. § 1516 (b)], and * * * therefore qualified to maintain its protest under that paragraph.” Star-Kist Foods, Inc., v. United States (Bruno Scheidt, Inc., Party in Interest), 45 C.C.P.A., Customs, 16, C.A.D. 666. … In our opinion, the Schechter and Panama Refining Co. cases, supra, are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. We agree with counsel for the plaintiff that the ease of J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Company v.