Case law

Dinh v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 11, 2022

Bellanti had neglected to note that, as the record established, C.N.’s AD began prior to his immunizations. First Rachelefsky Rep. at 16. … establishing preponderance.

Tessie Dingle v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 23, 2013

For establishing causation in fact. … Cl. 148, 152 (1993) (“Simply because a witness is found qualified to testify as an expert does not mean that the trier of fact must accept his testimony.”).

Ciro of Bond Street, Inc. v. Commissioner

11 T.C. 188 · United States Tax Court · Aug 19, 1948

Other forms were, we think, clearly intended to be excluded. … This can only fairly mean that the mere presence of operating capital obtained can not, alone, satisfy the statute, but it must be represented by established forms of debt.

Energy East Corp. v. United States

92 Fed. Cl. 29 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 11, 2010

Congress has waived sovereign immunity permitting a certain delimited category of taxpayers to recoup interest by netting. … The various rates of interest payable or allowed to different kinds of taxpayers are established by § 6621, through reference to the Federal short-term rate plus a number of fixed percentage points.

Peter v. United States

6 Cl. Ct. 768 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 30, 1984

Defendant’s arguments that specific authority that mandates monetary compensation or creates a fiduciary obligation is required to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity do not take into account the distinction between … The allegations clearly are not frivolous. Whether plaintiffs’ evidence ultimately will be sufficient to establish the facts alleged in the complaint is not before the court on a motion to dismiss.

Critzer v. United States

597 F.2d 708 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 18, 1979

The Government now contests this recommendation, and the question of exemption is the sole issue before us at this juncture. 7 Plaintiff argues first and foremost that her business and leasing income is clearly exempt under … free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever.” 10 The Court went on to say that "[t]he purpose of the allotment system was to protect the Indians’ interest and 'to prepare the Indians to take their place as independent, qualified

Howard Hughes Co., LLC v. Comm'r

142 T.C. 355 · United States Tax Court · Jun 2, 2014

Petitioners have not established that at the time of each sale qualifying dwelling units would ever be built on the sold land. … Consequently, petitioners have failed to establish that such construction costs are incurred with respect to qualifying dwelling units.

Godchaux-Henderson Sugar Co., Inc. v. United States

496 F. Supp. 1326 · United States Customs Court · Sep 19, 1980

I cannot disregard the cut-off date for duty-free entry established by Executive Order 11906 simply on the tenuous basis that plaintiff mistakenly assumed that the merchandise did not qualify for GSP treatment. … But the present case is clearly distinguishable from Tower. In Tower, the merchandise was duty free at the time of entry, but through mistake of fact was entered as dutiable.

Pamela J. Sharp v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 267 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 15, 2009

This regulation similarly does not aid in discerning whether the Secretary considers there to be only one qualifying rating, as opposed to every rating meeting the statutory requirements to be a qualifying rating. … The Court is not persuaded by the Secretary's argument that this language supports his interpretation that only the first qualifying disability rating qualifies for additional compensation.

Old Virginia Brick Co. v. Commissioner

44 T.C. 724 · United States Tax Court · Aug 24, 1965

A corporation in which any shareholder is a corporation, trust, or partnership does not qualify as a small business corporation. … The cases clearly establish that the question of whether, for Federal income tax purposes, an estate has terminated and a trust been created must be decided in such a manner as to give a uniform application to a nationwide

Jack R. Mendenhall Corp. v. Commissioner

68 T.C. 676 · United States Tax Court · Aug 4, 1977

The original provisions of petitioner’s plan clearly did not qualify in form under section 401 prior to the time the plan was amended. … In that case, the employer, who was on a calendar year basis, established a stock option plan in December 1969 for its employees. The plan was to be effective immediately and apply to the calendar year 1969.

Dudenhoeffer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 11, 2016

furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … At the outset, Respondent claimed, Petitioner failed to sufficiently establish the nature of K.T.’s alleged injury. Id. at 13.

Applegate v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 751 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2002

Nor does this conclusion clash with the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … As such, various decisions clearly indicate that “[ajttorneys’ fees and expenses are not embraced within just compensation for land taken by eminent domain.” Dohany v.

Citizens Insurance Co. of America v. United States

102 Fed. Cl. 733 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 29, 2011

A waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969). … United States, 405 F.3d 1002, 1005 (Fed.Cir.2005); *739 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (e) (2006) (providing “basic protection against the costs of hospital, related post-hospital, home health services, and hospice care” for qualifying

Congressional Oversight of the White House

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Jan 8, 2021

Id. at 751. 10 The Presi- 10 The Supreme Court has held that presidential aides are generally treated differently from the President for purposes of immunity in civil litigation, receiving qualified im- munity rather … In deter- mining whether a person qualifies for this immunity, we have considered the day-to-day responsibilities of the adviser and the extent of his or her regular interaction with the President.

Houston v. Commissioner

33 B.T.A. 237 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Oct 18, 1935

It is axiomatic that one claiming immunity from the imposition of a tax must bring himself clearly within the exemption. Has petitioner done so? … That circumstance was not considered sufficient in the Haight case, supra, to establish the relationship of *241 employer and employee and we do not believe tliat it should be deemed sufficient in this case.

Prineville Sawmill Co. v. United States

34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,425 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 15, 1988

The instant case is clearly not a sealed bid case, where bidding strategy can be detected by bidders in a second auction. Rather, the instant sale was conducted at oral auction. … Sealed *192 bids were required only in the qualifying round, not in the bidding when the sale was to be awarded.

Apuzzo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 2, 2025

Consequently, like in Lombardi, “[i]n the face of such extreme disagreement among well-qualified medical experts . . . it was appropriate for the special master to first determine what injury, if any, was supported by the … causation due to immunization.

Zabolotny v. Commissioner

97 T.C. 385 · United States Tax Court · Sep 30, 1991

To qualify under section 407(d)(4) of ERISA, the subject property must first qualify as “employer real property.” … L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 832, sets forth the guidelines of standards governing the establishment and operation of pension plans and also establishes general standards of conduct for plan fiduciaries.

Swift & Staley, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 27, 2021

. § 121.103 (“Paragraph (h)”) defines the term “joint venture” and establishes requirements for a concern to qualify as a joint venture “[f]or the purposes of [the] provision.” … The Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity “covers a broad range of potential disputes arising during the course of the procurement process.” Sys. Application & Techs., Inc. v.