Source: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/8?page=150
Timestamp: 2017-12-17 23:41:59
Document Index: 157821652

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 115', '§ 28', '§ 6221', '§ 6662', '§ 6664', '§ 201', '§ 1491']

07-858C • THE CNA CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,
Bid Protest; Motion to Strike; Bid Preparation and Proposal Costs;Finality; RCFC 59 and 60 Signed by Judge Horn.
Vaccine Act; Motion for Review; Hepatitis B Vaccine; Seizure Disorder; Causation; Althen; Pafford; Challenge-Rechallenge;Temporal Relationship; Vaccine Rule 8(f); Waiver; Capizzano; Sequelae Signed by Judge Sweeney.
04-1726T • EUGENE A. FISHER, Trustee, SEYMOUR P. NAGAN IRREVOCABLE TRUST, v. THE UNITED STATES,
Trial; Mutual insurance company - participating policyholders;Demutualization;Gain on sale of stock received in exchange for ownership rights;Basis allocation rule - Treas. Reg. § 1.61-6; "Open transaction" doctrine - Burnet v.Logan; Limited exception to Treas. Reg. § 1.61-6 where impossible or impractical to value property; Pierce, Inaja Land and Warren construed; Mutual ownership rights found not to be susceptible of valuation; Expert reports on valuation; "Open transaction" exception to Treas. Reg. § 1.61-6 applicable; Refund entitled Signed by Judge Allegra.
Modified Order of Injunction, Motion to Stay Signed by Judge Smith.
07-374C • AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES,
RCFC 59; Motion for Reconsideration; Surety Bond; 13 C.F.R. § 115.19 (2002); Plaintiff, RCFC 9(c) Signed by Judge Sweeney.
04-1435C • TERRY EASTER, ET AL., v. THE UNITED STATES,
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to RCFC 12(c); Facts Indistinguishable from Facts in Adams II; No Change In Applicable Substantive Law Since AdamsII;Judgment as a Matter of Law Appropriate Signed by Judge Hewitt.
08-352C • TIP TOP CONSTRUCTION, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES,
Post-Award Bid Protest;FAR 28.203, 48 C.F.R. § 28.203(2007); Bid Bond; Individual Surety; Rejection of Contractor Because Found Non-Responsible;Contracting Officer's Decision was not Arbitrary, or Capricious;No Injunctive Relief Signed by Judge Bush.
RONALD C. & MARY G. PRATI, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Signed by Judge Block.
05-748T & 07-520T • STOBIE CREEK INVESTMENTS, LLC, JFW ENTERPRISES, INC., Tax Matters and Notice Partner, v. THE UNITED STATES,
Tax; tax refund; partnership-level proceedings for readjustment of partnership items; Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982("TEFRA"), 26 U.S.C.("I.R.C.") § § 6221-6234 (2000); RCFC App. F; validity of retroactive application of Treasury regulation; Coltec Indus., Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1340(Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1261 (2007); economic substance doctrine; step transaction doctrine; tax shelter; accuracy-related penalties,I.R.C. § 6662; reasonable cause and good faith, I.R.C. § 6664 Signed by Judge Miller, C..
08-470C • ALABAMA AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. - BIRMINGHAM, v. UNITED STATES, and THE BOEING COMPANY, Intervening Defendant
Post-award bid protest; motions to supplement the administrative record and for discovery Signed by Judge Lettow.
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; RCFC 56; Motion to Dismiss; RCFC 12(b)(6); FLSA;29 U.S.C. § § 201-219; Federal Aviation Administration; Air Traffic Control Specialists;Traffic Management Coordinators; Staff Specialists Signed by Judge Hewitt.
Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to RCFC 54(b) and 59(a) Denied; No Change in Controlling Law, No Availability of Previously Unavailable Evidence, and No Manifest Error of Law or Mistake of Fact in Court's Opinion of March 28, 2008 Signed by Judge Hewitt.
08-07C • MICHAEL TELEMAQUE, v. THE UNITED STATES
Motion to Dismiss; RCFC 12(b)(6); Pro se standard of review; 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Signed by Judge Smith.
08-136C • WILLIAM ATKINS v. THE UNITED STATES,
Fifth Amendment Taking Claim;Patented Device Classified As Machine Gun; Exercise of Police Power; Motion to Dismiss Under RCFC 12(b)(6) Signed by Judge Wheeler.
07-811C • METROTOP PLAZA ASSOCIATES, v. THE UNITED STATES,
Contract Disputes Actâ€”Timeliness of a Claim: (i) For statute of limitations purposes, the finality of a contracting officer's decision is suspended during the period when the contracting officer is reconsidering the decision, whether or not a formal motion for reconsideration has been filed. (ii) The date of mailing of a claim to the contracting officer does not establish the starting date for the 60-day period required for a contracting officer's deemed decision in the absence of facts confirming the contracting agency's receipt of the claim Signed by Judge Wiese.