Case law

LOVERIDGE v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 26, 2024

We said, Mother Nature clearly doesn’t like it up there. We’ll take the funds and do things on the industrial park instead.”)). … We said, Mother Nature clearly doesn’t like it up there. We’ll take the funds and do things on the industrial park instead.”)).

Eager v. United States

32 Ct. Cl. 571 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 1, 1897

The petition shows that the plaintiff was an acting inspector of customs at said port, duly appointed and qualified, and at the time mentioned was regularly assigned to receive and deliver unappraised and imported merchandise … After all such deductions have been made, informers whose claims have been clearly established will be awarded 25 per centum and detectors and seizors will be awarded 85 per centum of such net proceeds, except where, in special

Caddell Construction Company v. United States

129 Fed. Cl. 383 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 17, 2016

As required, and subject to the size of the project, this is the process we establish to supplement our core team staffing requirements accordingly. … Cl. 541, 553 (2014). 14 Caddell states that it was initially given a technical rating of fail for Factor 4 Subfactor 2 because “some of the commitment dates ran into subsequent calendar years and did not clearly indicate

Strahler v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 18, 2022

If, however, you are found physically qualified for separation, any defect will be recorded[. … To refute the BCNR’s decision, a plaintiff’s evidence must be “cogent and clearly convincing[.]” Stuart v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 413, 421 (2015) (quoting Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed.

Behm v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 395 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 7, 2005

the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which … The pay plan and movement rules are clearly gender-neutral on their face.

Cottingham v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 20, 2022

Thus, the Federal Circuit held that the Special Master abused his discretion because his decision rested on the clearly erroneous finding of fact that Petitioner had produced “no evidence” to support her claim. … fees was largely based on his finding 2 that Petitioner failed to present evidence to meet Althen prong two because she did not “file a statement from a treating doctor or qualified

Holt v. United States

64 Fed. Cl. 215 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 18, 2005

Holt’s petition because she was not a qualified applicant. While Mrs. Holt challenges the Board’s jurisdictional rejection, she also seeks substantive relief. … Only a statute promising procedures to be established at a later date. Defendant has quoted from Mass. v.

Shinyei Corp. of America v. United States

33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1735 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 2, 2009

There is no question, therefore, that Shinyei qualifies as a prevailing party. See Hensley v. … Unless bad faith is established, a mere clerical error at the agency level does not automatically render the United States’ position unreasonable. Cummings v. Sullivan, 950 F.2d 492, 500 (7th Cir. 1991).

W. S. Badcock Corp. v. Commissioner

59 T.C. 272 · United States Tax Court · Nov 20, 1972

such method as, in the opinion of the Secretary * * * does clearly reflect income.” … of the Secretary or his delegate, does clearly reflect income.

In re A Proposed Amendment to Rule 26(b)

12 Vet. App. 432 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 24, 1998

Similarly, the Court has stated that the burden is on the appellant to establish that the Board’s fact-finding was clearly erroneous. Zink v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 258, 259 (1997) (per curiam). … 106 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“Although equitable estoppel is available against the government, it is not available to grant a money payment where Congress has not authorized such a payment or the recipient doesn’t qualify

Lyon v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2022

It is clearly, as articulated by the Fisher court, the lack of discretion contained in § 1201 that was the deciding factor. … such personnel and not to review and reverse decisions of other established boards favorable to such personnel.”

Ball v. Commissioner

47 T.C.M. 1684 · United States Tax Court · Apr 25, 1984

Fraud must be affirmatively established. Drieborg v. Commissioner, 225 F.2d 216 , 218 (6th Cir. 1955) , affg. in part a Memorandum Opinion of this Court. … Under Rules 90(e) and 91(e), these matters admitted are conclusively established.

Diliberti v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 404 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 29, 1983

Clearly, the grant or denial of plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief was in the district court judge’s discretion. … This court’s opinion is established on res judicata; it is one which bars further adjudication of plaintiff’s claim.

Peggy L. Quattlebaum v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 171 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 5, 2012

Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974) ("[W]hen two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective."); Terry … Quattlebaum established her status as a proper accrued benefits claimant.

Northern Illinois Gas Co. v. United States

12 Cl. Ct. 84 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 25, 1987

. § 553 (1982), establishes a set of procedural requirements applicable to agency rulemaking that is legislative in nature. … The IRS merely ruled that utility *88 trucks with pintle hooks qualified as “equipped for use” in combination with trailers.

Daido Corp. v. United States

807 F. Supp. 1571 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 25, 1992

In light ... of these considerations, the ACA submits that the information qualifies for confidential treatment under 19 C.F.R. § 353.32 (a). ... In view of the ... … Whatever the particular responsibilities, the defendants and intervenor-defendant oppose grant of any stay, which can only occur when an applicant therefor establishes a threat of immediate irreparable harm, the likelihood

Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 12, 2019

As it timely submitted its capabilities statement, it qualifies as a prospective bidder for purposes of a sole- source challenge. See Digitalis, 904 F.3d at 1385. … In the Court’s view, however, Harmonia’s claims that the agency conducted market research only so that it could provide an after-the-fact justification for a decision it already made clearly sound in bad faith.

Johnson v. McDonald

28 Vet. App. 136 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 5, 2016

This factor furthers the commonsense principle that “[f]or purposes of the EAJA, the more clearly established are the governing norms, and the more clearly they dictate the result in favor of the private litigant, the less … , 20 Vet.App. at 192— to establish that the agency’s misconstruction was reasonable.

WU

27 I. & N. Dec. 8 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2017

The defendant in Grajeda asserted that a violation of section 245(a)(1) does not “require proof of sufficiently intentional conduct to qualify” as a crime of violence because, pursuant to Williams, “California’s definition … In that decision, the court additionally held that “Ceron does not clearly indicate a different interpretation of the mens rea requirement for § 245(a)(1) than that set forth in Grajeda.”

Elkem Metals Co. v. United States

126 F. Supp. 2d 567 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 20, 2000

Elkem counters that the Government failed to establish a “legal basis for withholding” the documents (Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. … Supp. 212, 217 (1984) (“Once the proponent of privilege has complied with the established criteria for asserting privilege, the opposing party must demonstrate clearly and persuasively that the need for disclosure outweighs