Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.70s
71 Fed. Cl. 284 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 9, 2006
. § 567.1 (w) (1990) (restrictively defining the amount of supervisory goodwill that qualified for regulatory accounting). … “If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.” Locke v. United States, 151 Ct.Cl. 262, 267 , 283 F.2d 521, 524 (1960) (citation omitted).
Cited 4 timesPublished42 Fed. Cl. 449 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 22, 1998
This disability qualified plaintiff for a $91.00 monthly benefit. Id. at 54. It is not clear from the record what additional benefit plaintiff would receive from the physical examination sought in this litigation. … Clearly, the ABCMR was not arbitrary, capricious or unlawful in not awarding relief which was not requested.
Cited 14 timesPublishedSystem Studies and Simulation, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 21, 2021
Instead, as counsel for defendant phrased it during oral argument, “there is clearly a role for the Court to apply some level of analysis and logic in the prejudice determination.” Tr. 27. The court has done just that. … See AR 156 (“The ability to [. . .] staff qualified personnel is critical to the accomplishment of the mission.
Cited 0 timesPublished86 T.C. 360 · United States Tax Court · Mar 12, 1986
This was clearly not a typical abusive tax shelter scenario. … Thus, that sum was clearly taxable in 1976.
Cited 203 timesPublishedSurace v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 5, 2025
Overstimulation of the immune system is also common in vaccines, as they “are generally formulated with the primary purpose of activating the immune system so that the body mounts a lasting immune response. . . .” … Here, a significant aggravation claim has not been established, even if I focus solely on conditions Petitioner clearly had experienced pre-vaccination, like PMDD.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedHeddens v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2019
position is that molecular mimicry between the HPV vaccine and 8 myelin basic protein “activates T cells that are cross-reactive with self-antigens,” thereby triggering an immune … to ENTER final judgment in accordance with the special master’s decision of October 5, 2018; and (4) The parties shall separately FILE any proposed redactions to this opinion, with the text to be redacted clearly
Cited 0 timesPublishedIndustrial Quimica del Nalon, S.A. v. United States
15 Ct. Int'l Trade 240 · United States Court of International Trade · May 24, 1991
” of what ITA considers sufficient to establish a technical services adjustment for salaried employees were cited. … Commerce’s desire to obtain documentation should not fly in the face of established business practice, and should not be transformed into a do-or-die requirement.
Cited 0 timesPublishedEverett Plywood & Door Corp. v. United States
419 F.2d 425 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 12, 1969
It was stated that to qualify for oral bidding, each bidder had to submit a sealed bid to be posted at the commencement of the auction. … Each such party had a compass man and a person deemed qualified as a cruiser, with the latter compiling the data on which the estimates were made.
Cited 30 timesPublished122 Fed. Cl. 139 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 22, 2015
Lastly, the Greiners contend that the 2008 and 2009 payments qualify for capital gain treatment because they represent the long-term return on an initial investment made by Mr. … Here, in contrast, there is no allegation or evidence that either the open or the closed transaction approaches failed to reflect income clearly.
Cited 1 timesPublishedTele-Communications v. Commissioner
95 T.C. 495 · United States Tax Court · Nov 7, 1990
As previously noted, respondent readily admits that the statutory definition of “franchise” is clearly worded and unambiguous. … In any event, ADL presents a clearly reasoned and properly supported valuation of petitioner’s cost basis in its cable television franchises.
Cited 21 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 13, 2025
On remand, the Board shall reconsider its finding, ensure that its conclusions and analysis are consistent with this opinion, and clearly apply the principles of liberal consideration as set forth above. 2 … The court of appeals rejected the veteran’s argument that the VA failed to establish that it had provided the required notice.
Cited 0 timesPublished25 B.T.A. 585 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Feb 23, 1932
From the pleadings and the evidence we find the following additional facts: *587 The petitioner is the duly qualified executor of the last will of Mary M. Emery, deceased, who died on October 11, 1927. Thomas J. … That the decedent had been engaged in carrying on business, at least constructively, previous to the completion of the transaction hereinafter referred to is clearly disclosed by the evidence.
Cited 6 timesPublishedUnited States Tax Court · Oct 16, 2023
In addition to the general rule that courts must construe waivers of immunity strictly in favor of the sovereign, see McMahon v. … Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 318 (1986) (“When Congress has intended to waive the United States’ immunity with respect to interest, it has done so expressly . . . .”).
Cited 0 timesPublishedT.J. ENTERPRISES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
101 T.C. 581 · United States Tax Court · Dec 16, 1993
It is well established that expenses incurred to protect, maintain, or preserve a taxpayer’s business, even though not in the normal course of such business, may be deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses. … Clearly, this is not a valid basis for comparison. The redemptions referred to by respondent were effected in response to dissension between petitioner and its minority owners.
Cited 9 timesPublishedFrontier Insurance v. United States
276 F. Supp. 2d 1334 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 17, 2003
For purposes of this matter, the congres- sional express waiver of sovereign immunity is found in 28 U.S.C. … The roles of Customs and Commerce have been clearly differentiated by the 1979 act and are reflected in the foregoing subsections 1581(a) and (c).
Cited 0 timesPublished23 T.C. 254 · United States Tax Court · Nov 17, 1954
As a consequence of this research *61 the petitioner is qualified to give various graduate seminars in 18th century drama for which he was not qualified before he embarked upon the fellowship. … Compliance with the conditions stated by the foundation was clearly not intended as consideration for the award.
Cited 12 timesPublishedAM/NS Calvert LLC v. United States
2023 CIT 129 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 6, 2023
The facts asserted in the pleadings establish that Commerce’s exclusion denials are the source of the al- leged harm. … But it also contains an exception, one that restored the government’s immunity as to “trust or In- dian lands.” Id. (quoting § 2409a(a)).
Cited 0 timesPublished139 T.C. 468 · United States Tax Court · Dec 19, 2012
Clearly then, petitioners did not "attach" the relevant document to their return. … Congress also provided a second method for a noncustodial parent to get the exemption: He could show that he spent at least $1,200 on the child, but only if the custodial parent could not "clearly establish" that she spent
Cited 5 timesPublishedPCL Construction Services, Inc. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,325 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 24, 1998
West, 46 F.3d 1547, 1556 (Fed.Cir.1995) (“Even though the disclosures to Victaulie clearly violated the FAR.... … The individual claimants, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional statute for a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. at 398 , 96 S.Ct. 948 .
Cited 10 timesPublishedSuperior Com. Sols. LLC v. United States
2025 CIT 147 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 26, 2025
The statute clearly states that “the Commissioner shall initiate an investigation” no later than 15 business days after receiving an allegation. 19 U.S.C. § 1517(b)(1). … Cir. 2006) (It is “well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived.”).
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna