Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersFS

10,000+ results

0.39s

  • Professional Management Consulting Services, LLC

    Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · Jun 25, 2020

    The WMATA scope of work, which is captioned as a task order (61861 R4, tab 1 at WMATA-027–33) does not specify the type of contract, but clearly contemplates a labor hour contract. … FAR 52.212-4(a)(5) (Deviation I). 14 Given that WMATA possesses sovereign immunity, it may also be immune to suit for attorney fees. 23 Having determined that

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Rocco v. Perciavalle v. Denis McDonough

    United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 3, 2021

    Cir. 2001), that pain alone could not qualify as a disability. Saunders, 886 F.3d at 1365-66.17 Nothing like that happened in connection with the knee regulations at issue here. Most importantly, Mr. … [Perciavalle] has no recourse for appeal through a CUE [motion]; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(e) clearly proscribes Mr.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Texas State Commission v. United States

    6 Cl. Ct. 730 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 26, 1984

    In its place an income-sharing formula was established. … Unless Congress has clearly indicated a contrary meaning, its ordinary meaning is favored. United States v. Snider, 502 F.2d 645, 651 (4th Cir.1974).

    Reversed on other grounds by Texas State Commission for the Blind and State of Texas v. The United States, 796 F.2d 400 (1986)Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Davis v. Commissioner

    63 T.C.M. 2849 · United States Tax Court · Apr 23, 1992

    Notwithstanding her concessions, petitioner contends that she qualifies as an innocent spouse under section 6013(e). … We note that the record clearly establishes that petitioners have lived in California since approximately June 1982.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Pathman Construction Co. v. United States

    33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,394 · United States Court of Claims · May 30, 1986

    There is simply no rational basis to apply § 609(a)(1) to allow suit and reject § 609(a)(3) to establish the time required to bring suit. … These cases are expansive and ignore that the CDA grants a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and must be construed strictly. Soriano v.

    Reversed by Pathman Construction Company, Inc. v. The United States, 817 F.2d 1573 (1987)Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Rubenstein v. Commissioner

    134 T.C. 266 · United States Tax Court · Jun 7, 2010

    Clearly the condominium was subject to judicial process by the United States to collect Jerry Rubenstein’s taxes, not- withstanding any homestead … Commissioner, supra at 215 (holding that to establish equitable estoppel against the Government, there must be detrimental reliance by the party

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Glock, Inc. v. United States

    736 F. Supp. 3d 1279 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 4, 2024

    A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify … If a responding party objects to a request for admission, it must clearly state the grounds for the objection. USCIT R. 36(a)(5).

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • 112 GENESEE STREET, LLC v. United States

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 24, 2024

    The statute implies that even if a case is certified for an interlocutory appeal, Congress established a preference against staying litigation in the trial court during the appeal. … Similarly, discovery by the defendant into whether each of the 303 plaintiffs was qualified to receive RRF payments may be time-consuming.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • McKnight v. Commissioner

    63 T.C.M. 2853 · United States Tax Court · Apr 23, 1992

    The memorandum states clearly to all recipients of lump-sum payouts that the amount will be subject to all applicable Federal, state, and local income tax withholding, as well as FICA contributions. … The determination of the Commissioner that petitioners' underpayment of tax was due to negligence or intentional disregard of rule or regulations is "presumptively correct and must stand unless the taxpayer can establish

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Former Employees of Barry Callebaut v. Herman

    177 F. Supp. 2d 1304 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 2, 2001

    In response, Defendant filed a Motion for a Voluntary Remand “for the purpose of allowing the agency to conduct an additional investigation and to make a redetermination as to whether petitioners qualify for certification … As this would clearly circumvent the purpose of NAFTA TAA, Plaintiffs’ argument fails. 5 The court notes that Congress requires a “significant number or proportion of the workers” be displaced in order

    Reversed on other grounds by Former Employees of Barry Callebaut v. Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor, 357 F.3d 1377 (2004)Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Dougherty v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 21, 2019

    There is not a preponderance of evidence demonstrating that petitioner's GBS is I due to a factor unrelated to her immunization. Pagel of 5 6. … There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Land Shark Shredding, LLC v. United States

    United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 2019

    The tiers of cascading preferred business types are clearly delineated, beginning with SDVOSBs, then veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs), then all other small businesses, then all other businesses. Id. … Although both entities were considered to be qualified to perform the required services, SafeGuard’s proposal was determined to be the “most advantageous to the Government.” Id.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • J. Parr Construction & Design, Inc. v. United States

    37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,167 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 5, 1991

    The evidence clearly tells the story of a contractor who was unable to adequately perform the job. … The evidence also clearly shows that the government got nothing of value from the contractor’s performance.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Estate of Tomec v. Commissioner

    40 T.C. 134 · United States Tax Court · Apr 24, 1963

    Scammell, Jr., is the duly qualified administrator of the estate of Mary Fownes Tornee (hereinafter referred to as decedent) who died intestate on April 12,1957. … Waring Mellick, Jr., born May 17,1956 On June 17, 1955, decedent established a trust hereinafter referred to as the trust) by transferring securities to trustees under a trust agreement which provided in part as follows:

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Blease v. Commissioner

    16 B.T.A. 972 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jun 10, 1929

    W. 71 , which was an action for breach of agreement to pay for services by will: But the rule appears to be well established that where it is mutually understood that services are not to be rendered gratuitously, but to be … We are clearly of opinion that complainant participated in the estate of testator as a creditor and not as a legatee and that the amount recovered by her was compensation for services rendered and therefore income within

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Johnson Trust v. Commissioner

    71 T.C. 941 · United States Tax Court · Feb 28, 1979

    Since, by its terms, the statute clearly included an estate distributee, we refused to regard as an inadvertence Congress’ use eight times within section 302(c)(2) of that word. … For this reason, we have not included in our findings all the facts established by the evidence with respect to the remoteness of the possibility of distributions from the trust for the support and care of Mrs. Johnson.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • First Commerce Corp. v. United States

    60 Fed. Cl. 570 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 18, 2004

    (stating that defendant’s “argument that the government is immune from contractual liability because it was acting in its regulatory capacity was rejected squarely by this court and the Supreme Court in Wins-tar”). … This is a significant difference because, as plaintiff argues, contracting specifically for certain types of assets to qualify as regulatory capital is not the same as contracting for the level of capital that will be needed

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Foundation Co. v. Commissioner

    14 T.C. 1333 · United States Tax Court · Jun 30, 1950

    The Control Commission developed other rates of exchange for certain transactions, and for imports and exports, such as the export draft rate, but petitioner could not qualify under the restrictions and regulations established … Clearly, 1933 and 1934 were not the years in which deduction could be allowed.

    Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Conscoop-Consorzia Fra Cooperative Di Prod. E Lavoro v. United States

    62 Fed. Cl. 219 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 13, 2004

    The power failure is clearly an unanticipated event which limited the governments [sic] ability to receive Conseoop’s pricing proposal in a timely manner. … and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be — • (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Taylor v. United States

    192 Ct. Cl. 581 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 12, 1970

    The evidence clearly shows that the injury was incurred in service and not in an automobile accident prior to reentering service. … The evidence in this case clearly establishes that at the time of his release from active duty on May 28,1962, plaintiff was permanently incapacitated for active military duty, that his disability should have been rated at

    Cited 0 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.