Case law

International Electronics Corp. v. United States

646 F.2d 496 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 8, 1981

Clearly, however, the *229 liquidated damages clause in the IEC contract cannot reasonably be construed as a penalty. … Also, the evidence clearly established that the calibration technician qualifications had been stiffened in the IEC contract so as to eliminate loopholes that had allowed prior contractors to hire personnel of dubious ability

Cape Fox Corp. v. United States

4 Cl. Ct. 223 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 27, 1983

On April 24, 1974, the Forest Service informed ATC that the contract expired on December 31, 1974, and that it might not qualify for an extension. … ANCSA establishes a procedure for selection and conveyance of lands to the regional and village corporations.

Wheeler Bros., Inc.

650 F.2d 291 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 19, 1980

It is fundamental that the "Court of Claims jurisdiction to grant relief depends wholly upon the extent to which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity to suit and that such waiver cannot be implied but must … We read the second sentence of the quoted ASPR section as qualifying the first sentence and creating an exception.

Anderson v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 573 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 6, 1984

If a claim falls within this category, the existence of a waiver of sovereign immunity is clear. … to waivers of sovereign immunity.

Schuhl v. United States

3 Cl. Ct. 207 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 16, 1983

United States, 198 Ct.Cl. 48, 64 , 457 F.2d 978, 986-87 (1972), in which a governmental agent erroneously advised and misled a military officer to believe that he qualified for retirement benefits and said representation … Subpara-graphs f and g are captioned “Shortage-category appointees and student trainees” and “Overseas assignment and return” respectively, and are clearly inapplicable to plaintiff. .

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe

650 F.2d 285 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 11, 1980

from interest charge unless its sovereign immunity has been expressly waived by statute or contract. … ; demonstrates that the immunity discussed in the Delaware case does not obtain to tribal clients.

California Canners & Growers Ass'n v. United States

7 Cl. Ct. 69 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 14, 1984

Because it is clearly akin to sovereign immunity, we must also examine a concept referred to as “governmental privilege”. … The Government is not only protected from suit by the doctrine of sovereign immunity but is also shielded from liability by unique absolute or qualified governmental privileges.

Acker v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 803 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 13, 1991

The statute of limitations defines the time period during which Congress has waived sovereign immunity so as to permit suit against the government in the Claims Court. … First, if the Hart court intended to overrule such long-established precedent, it presumably would have made such an intent clear. It did not.

Biagioli v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 304 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 18, 1983

Plaintiff, moreover, does not dispute defendant’s assertion that his veteran’s preference fails to augment his creditable service or qualify him for permanent status. … Bergland, 607 F.2d 1090, 1092 (5th Cir.1979) (probationary employee who brought suit based on violation of first and fifth amendment rights denied relief as to liberty claims, because the lower court’s conclusion was not clearly

Cucuras v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services

26 Cl. Ct. 537 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 10, 1992

The second page of this entry states, “DTP and OPV 4 weeks ago (had immunizations 1 week prior to onset of the spell).” … Then you turn over to page 247 and it says under the plan section, ITem 5, “Consult parents further re: DPT immunizations and onset of first seizures, and consider advising against further immunizations of DPT.”

Marland v. United States

3 F. Supp. 611 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 5, 1933

power, where the tax is not laid upon the contracts made by the State in the exercise of that power, or upon the amounts payable thereunder, but is laid upon the result of distinct transactions by private owners, it must clearly … We have again carefully considered this question in the light of the additional facts established on the new trial, and in the light of the reargument and the authorities cited by the parties in support of their respective

Hong-Yee Chiu v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 567 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 8, 1989

It then establishes a cap which potentially can limit the fee award to an amount below those prevailing market rates: “, except that ... … that occurred subsequent to performance of the attorney work when establishing a COLA.

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States

596 F.2d 435 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 21, 1979

L. 94-574 and the Tucker Act establishes a dichotomy not unlike that in the courts of equity and law in olden days. … News 6121, 6122-26, 6131-36; Davis, Sovereign Immunity Must Go, 22 Ad. L. Rev. 383, 403-05 (1970); Jacoby, Roads to the Demise of the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, 29 Ad. Law Rev. 265, 270-71 *512 (1977).

Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. United States

11 Cl. Ct. 452 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 12, 1987

The Nowinski affidavit establishes beyond cavil that Mr. … Defendant has not argued on brief the qualified privilege for official information.

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

22 Cl. Ct. 403 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 15, 1991

Subsection (2)(B) makes it necessary to show the cause of a condition before it can qualify as a “factor unrelated” to the vaccine administration. … Cryptogenic infantile spasms by definition do not qualify.

Brown

566 F.2d 1188 · United States Court of Claims · May 13, 1977

Not only does *755 the suit sound in tort (and is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1491 ), but an application of the doctrine of judicial immunity requires dismissal: Few doctrines [are] more solidly established at common law than the … immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.

United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe

518 F.2d 1309 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 11, 1975

United States, 302 U.S. 329 (1937). *379 The rule of sovereign immunity from suit against the Government without its consent is firmly established in our judicial system. … It was clearly for trusts of this definite character, established as we have said, by law, that the act of 181¡.l proposed to establish a general system.

Omega World Travel, Inc. v. United States

33 Cont. Cas. Fed. 74,306 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 24, 1986

It is clear beyond cavil, therefore, that by § 1491(a)(3) Congress waived sovereign immunity and made an equitable remedy available in this court only under the limited circumstances when it is established that a claim over … Here, in the case at hand, not only have plaintiffs failed to establish that they were bidders to a particular solicitation, but they have also failed to establish that there is outstanding a specific viable solicitation

Kamen Soap Products Co. v. United States

110 F. Supp. 430 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 3, 1953

The sovereign immunity of the Government from suit was waived in the very acts of Congress establishing this-court and conferring upon it jurisdiction to determine claims against the Government. … We think the 1855 act clearly evidenced the recognition by Congress of power in the court thereby established to issue subpoenas duces tecum requiring the production of government documents.

Board of County Com'rs of Sedgwick County v. United States

105 F. Supp. 995 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 15, 1952

Thus it is well established in the Kansas courts that such exemptions must be strictly construed, Clements v. Ljungdahl, 161 Kan. 274 , 167 P.2d 603 ; Palmer v. … State Commission of Revenue and Taxation, 156 Kan. 690 , 135 P.2d 899 ; and it has been said that the claimant of the tax exemption “must establish beyond a reasonable doubt his right thereto.”