Case law

Arrowood Indemnity Company v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 15, 2020

The Supreme Court established in Lebron v. … Second, plaintiffs have not asserted claims that qualify as both direct and derivative based on the dual-nature exception.

Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. United States

124 F. Supp. 359 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 5, 1954

The facts clearly establish that the scrap was to be put to a predominantly civil use. … It is established that these tabulations represent shipments made by North Western Steel and that the consignees are its regular customers.

Berkley v. United States

59 Fed. Cl. 675 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 20, 2004

Paragraph 7 states in relevant part: Your evaluation of minority and women officers must clearly afford them fair and equitable consideration. … Under certain enumerated circumstances, qualified individuals may return to active military duty. Sett. Agr. H4(o).

Constitutionality of Proposed Budget Process Reform Legislation

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · May 26, 1987

We are satisfied that the basic process that the bill would establish would be constitutional. … Clearly, Congress cannot by legislation prevent itself from enacting future legislation pursuant to whatever procedures it chooses to follow at that future time.

L. S. Donaldson Co. v. Commissioner

12 B.T.A. 271 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 1, 1928

chiefly upon the testimony of two witnesses who have been familiar with the real estate conditions in the City of Minneapolis, as well as with the particular property in question, for a number of years and were thoroughly qualified … Heiner, 25 Fed. (2d) 560, where the Court said: These departmental interpretations of the statute promulgated by formal regulations we think clearly put the instruments in suit in the class of notes.

Entitlement to Reservist Differential Pay Under Pre-Amendment Version of 5 U.S.C. § 5538

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Jun 28, 2010

It is clearly possible to read subsection (a)’s “while serving on active duty” provision, at least in isolation, to permit employees to receive reservist differential pay only for pay periods that occur within the period … See OPM, Reservist Differential, Guidance, Qualifying Periods, http://www.opm.gov/reservist/guidance/qualifying. asp (last visited ca. 2010).

L.W. Matteson, Inc. v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 296 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 20, 2004

(“Matteson”), an experienced government contractor and established hydraulic dredging company, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps”). … Furthermore, and consistent with the common theme throughout this opinion, the contract clearly and expressly assigned to Matteson the risk of obtaining local compliance. With this, the government clearly agrees.

Blake v. Commissioner

23 B.T.A. 554 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 3, 1931

Blake was a majority stockholder, there being only two other stockholders, other than those holding qualifying shares, and was president of the company after her husband's death. … established.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. United States

493 F.2d 1357 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 20, 1974

Article 7 (c) of the contract provides in pertinent part: * * * Based upon the survey report there shall be established a listing of in-class work necessary on the Ex *73 change Ship which is not to be performed prior to … Courts have not refused to qualify the apparent absolutes of a statutory provision when the harsh and inflexible consequences of literalism would frustrate the patent purpose of the whole act.

Peretz v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2020

immunity waiver, we typically employ a “fair interpretation” test. … Cl. 54, 60 (2017) (“To establish jurisdiction, Plaintiff must establish that he filed an administrative refund claim with the IRS prior to filing suit in this Court.”); Fremuth v. United States, 129 Fed.

Mobley Construction Co. v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 434 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 28, 2005

Congress’ limited waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the Government requires that the court adhere strictly to the statute. Soriano v. … Mobley’s agreeing to accept the restricted permit clearly was a risk. Perhaps Mr.

Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. v. United States

44 Fed. Cl. 334 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 18, 1999

In general, the CDA’s waiver of sovereign immunity extends only to those parties with express or implied contracts with the Government. … By qualifying its arrangement to remain a surety on the contract with the language, “notwithstanding the Agreement,” Airways effectively recognized that PAWS was the contractor.

Gilman v. Commissioner

72 T.C. 730 · United States Tax Court · Aug 1, 1979

As with the University Club and the Orlando Country Club, petitioner has failed to show that the yacht, qualifies under section 274(a)(1)(B). … Clearly, this testimony does not establish the business connection of the entertainment required by section 274(a) and section 274(d).

F.W. Myers, Inc. v. United States

12 Ct. Int'l Trade 566 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 16, 1988

Under either provision, the merchandise would qualify for duty-free status. … Based on the foregoing definitions, the Court finds the dictionary and encyclopedia sources neither refute nor clearly establish the proposition that the primary characteristic of a tractor is the facility for pushing and

Peretz v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2020

immunity waiver, we typically employ a “fair interpretation” test. … Cl. 54, 60 (2017) (“To establish jurisdiction, Plaintiff must establish that he filed an administrative refund claim with the IRS prior to filing suit in this Court.”); Fremuth v. United States, 129 Fed.

Osage Tribe of Indians v. United States

93 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2010

As this court held in Osage I, “the statutes and regulations at issue here clearly establish a fiduciary duty to verify that lessees fulfill their contractual obligations to the Tribe by verifying the accuracy of payments … Because the statutes and regulations at issue here clearly establish a fiduciary duty to verify that lessees fulfill their contractual obligations to the Tribe by verifying the accuracy of payments made, the court finds that

Gross v. United States

128 Fed. Cl. 745 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2016

The six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2501 “is a jurisdictional requirement attached by Congress as a condition of the government's waiver of sovereign immunity and, as such, must be strictly construed … Plaintiff argues that this established pattern qualifies both himself and the proposed class members as 16 “regularly scheduled” and renders them eligible to receive Sunday

Immigration Laws and Iranian Students

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Nov 11, 1979

M ost o f the statutory provisions establishing hearing rights are consti­ tutionally required. … T he protection o f citizenship is open to those w ho qualify for its privileges.

Maintenance Engineers v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 399 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 17, 2001

The TEB concluded that both of the proposals submitted by MLI and Maintenance “are considered clearly technically acceptable” and “can be considered for award.” … MLI’s proposal clearly offers the best value to the Government.

Export Packers Co., Ltd. v. United States

795 F. Supp. 422 · United States Court of International Trade · May 20, 1992

Nevertheless, Export Packers insists that its imported merchandise should qualify for Item 806.20 treatment. … The law is well settled that Customs’ regulatory provisions under § 10.8(e), (f) and (g) for securing Item 806.20 treatment at the time of importation, clearly presuppose conformance with the mandatory prerequisites set forth