Case law

Herbert Schoenbrod, as Trustee, Etc. v. The United States

410 F.2d 400 · United States Court of Claims · May 16, 1969

Plaintiffs’ contract is clearly not one for research and development, nor is it a cost-reimbursement contract. … Since plaintiffs’ services were clearly not “professional” or “special,” they should have been governed by 41 C.F.R. § 1-3.805 (a) (2).

Georgia Wholesale Co. v. United States

84 Ct. Cl. 150 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 7, 1936

A number of witnesses well qualified to testify as to the fair market value of these shoes were called and testified with reference to the matter. … Clearly this cannot be done.

Lance Industries, Inc. v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 762 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 10, 1983

In analyzing a negligence cause of action, however, defendant seeks to defeat the claim based on a qualified privilege. Qualified privileges arise in the context of intentional, not negligent torts. … The evidence establishing proximate cause is compelling.

4-Star Construction Corp. v. United States

32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,943 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 25, 1984

DISCUSSION The Claims Court’s jurisdiction is dependent upon the extent to which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity to suit. United States v. … Plaintiff did not file its claim until July 18, 1983, which is clearly outside the limitation prescribed by the statute. This court is therefore without jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim.

City of El Centro v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 500 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 16, 1989

It is well established that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit except to the extent that it has consented to be sued. United States v. … But defendant contends that the only contract plaintiff can establish here is one implied-in-law, on which the sovereign is immune to suit.

Crowley v. United States

527 F.2d 1176 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 17, 1975

Thompson had qualified. … Defendant also argues that none of the above-listed employees was temporarily promoted from a competitive promotion register established after the one on which plaintiff first qualified (i.e., that established in August 1967

Doyle v. United States

599 F.2d 984 · United States Court of Claims · May 16, 1979

are "best qualified” to serve in a promoted capacity. … This regulation, promulgated in 1966, required selection boards to categorize each officer they considered as "best qualified,” "fully qualified,” or "not fully qualified,” depending on the rating the boards gave the officer

Great Western Steel, Inc. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,582 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 3, 1983

A careful review of the invitation at issue, however, clearly establishes the BPA’s intention to equate Buy American Act compliance with the bidder’s performance as an LSAC of an awarded contract. … Anchor’s bid demonstrated that its costs “incurred * * * in Labor Surplus Areas [would] exceed 50% of the contract price,” thus qualifying Anchor as an LSAC.

Sode v. United States

531 F.2d 531 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1976

Prominent among these principles are the established analytical guides “that the ordinary and commonly understood meaning be *187 attributed to the terms employed in the statute unless a contrary meaning is clearly intended … The statute does not want for clarity of expression, but rather proclaims clearly that to qualify for the exemption the disability must be received as a direct *188 result of armed conflict.

Seagrave v. United States

128 F. Supp. 400 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 8, 1955

Defendant contends that the Army’s special regulation is a reasonable one, clearly consistent with the provisions of the statute and therefore having the force and effect of law. … The Navy Secretary asked the Comptroller whether he might establish January 1, 1949, as the effective date of Title III “without jeopardizing the right of individuals concerned to receive credits for points during the period

Branning v. United States

654 F.2d 88 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 1, 1981

These studies are relied upon to establish that property located in the "CNR 3” zone, as plotted in the studies and charts, has been rendered "clearly unacceptable” 4 for low, medium, or high density residential use as a … The evidence in this case clearly establishes that the CNR Zone 3 and CNR Zone 2 "footprints” include portions of plaintiffs property on Lady’s Island.

Matthews v. United States

87 Ct. Cl. 662 · United States Court of Claims · May 31, 1938

The President in his message of December 8, 1927, transmitting and recommending the adoption of the Jadwin Plan, and the Congress, in the Act of May 15, 1928, expressly declared the established doctrine of immunity of the … The act of the Government or the clear intention to take such action must amount to a complete appropriation of a clearly existing property right.

Medkirk v. United States

44 Ct. Cl. 469 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 29, 1909

The suspension being clearly wrongful, it was held on the authority of Lellmann’s case ( 37 C. Cls. R., 128 ) that the suspended employee was entitled to recover. … The principle that there can be no interference of the courts with the performance of the ordinary duties of the executive departments is too well established for the court to group the authorities.

Harold Unterberg v. The United States

412 F.2d 1341 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1969

It is only where the decision is clearly unsupported by substantial evidence or when there was a noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations, that this court may interfere. Ward v. … This contention is clearly without merit. Towell v. United States, 150 Ct.Cl. 422 (1960); Uhley v. United States, 147 F.Supp. 497 , 137 Ct.Cl. 275 (1957). 3 .

Northern Indian Housing & Development Council v. United States

12 Cl. Ct. 417 · United States Court of Claims · May 28, 1987

All claims brought into the court involve the United States and thus involve waiver of sovereign immunity. Porter v. … The court finds no reason to depart from the long-established principle that this court will not set aside an administrative decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious or clearly amounts to an abuse of discretion.

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 75 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 23, 1988

The data submitted were apparently incorrect, and the corrected data did not qualify for the comparability funding. The Honorable Ross O. … Congress provided a waiver of sovereign immunity in the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 , which states: The United States Claims Court shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded

O'Connell v. United States

14 Cl. Ct. 309 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 17, 1988

Plaintiff’s reading would eviscerate that purpose by immunizing a spouse from liability through the simple expedient of separately owned herds. … Damages in this type of action would be limited to program benefits for which plaintiff qualified. .

McClendon v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

24 Cl. Ct. 329 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 25, 1991

Thus, contrary to the assertions of the special master, the record clearly shows that Dr. … Clearly then, the petitioners established a prima facie case of entitlement.

Schwartz v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 182 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 17, 1989

It is well established that a suit in this court is only proper insofar as the United States has waived sovereign immunity and consented to suit. See United States v. … The waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to be sued must be clearly expressed and will be strictly construed. See United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 [ 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1502-1503 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 ] (1969).

Ruben ex rel. Ruben v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

22 Cl. Ct. 264 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 3, 1991

Clearly, courts have allowed exceptions to these general rules of statutory construction. See, e.g., Willis v. … Clearly, the fact that the state oversees this guardianship provides some level of protection against waste and mismanagement.