Case law

Haberman v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 302 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1989

It is well established, however, that the government cannot be sued on contract obligations implied-in-Iaw. United States v. … Likewise, the court in Bounds clearly stated: “Plaintiffs’ fifth amendment claim is ... without merit.

Joseph Swaaley v. The United States

376 F.2d 857 · United States Court of Claims · May 12, 1967

I indicated to [X] * * * that I am better qualified and better educated than the people who bypassed me * * *859 [X] finally told me very clearly “you do not get a promotion because you deserve it, you must pay for it. … The case is not clearly inconsistent with the conclusion we reach herein. In Jenson v.

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 417 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 1, 1991

The Court stated: Because the statutes and regulations at issue in this case clearly establish fiduciary obligations of the Government in the management and operation of Indian lands and resources, they can fairly be interpreted … As explained above, the Tribes’ reservations herein were established by statute and executive orders.

Costa v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services

26 Cl. Ct. 866 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 7, 1992

Therefore, the common medical policy is to avoid DPT immunization in all patients with infantile spasms and other seizures, as well as those known to have TS, because “immunizations with DPT have been reported to precede … Moreover, according to respondent’s expert witness, Stephen’s TS qualifies as an encephalopathy, congenital in origin, because TS is a brain abnormality acquired at birth.

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

22 Cl. Ct. 430 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 22, 1991

The Act did not establish a bottomless cash source for an unlimited pool of petitioners. … Schimshock has clearly stated *440 that he believes the vaccine caused Nathan’s injuries. . Tinnerholm, 411 F.2d at 50, 52-53 .

Busby School of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 588 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 25, 1985

It is well established that waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed. United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 5 , 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1503 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969). … Such a reading of section 1491(a)(3) clearly does not strictly construe that provision and it implies a waiver of sovereign immunity when an express waiver is required. See Fidelity Constr. Co. v.

Capital Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. United States

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,830 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 20, 1990

These statutory provisions clearly indicate that Congress has conditioned its waiver of sovereign immunity on the right of the government to assert counterclaims. See Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. … Therefore no issue of sovereign immunity was involved.

Brahms v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 471 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 27, 1989

This court rejects plaintiff’s attempt to establish jurisdiction over the interest claim under § 1346(a)(1). … Section 1346(a) is also subject to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless Congress specifically waives immunity by statute. United States v.

Town of North Bonneville v. United States

5 Cl. Ct. 312 · United States Court of Claims · May 11, 1984

Qualified residents were given the opportunity to purchase land in relocation areas directly from the Corps. … Similarly, the Relocation Contract established procedures in which some matters were left for future resolution.

Rae v. United States

159 Ct. Cl. 160 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 7, 1962

The medical evidence above-referred to, we think, clearly establishes but one fact; i.e., that prior to January 13, 1953, plaintiff was suffering from a pre-existing cardiovascular disease. … In this connection, the evidence establishes that plaintiff was not and had never been sensitive to eggs.

Millard v. United States

16 Cl. Ct. 485 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 13, 1989

Waiver of immunity and the conditions attendant thereto are expressions of the same authority. … Regulations can neither enlarge nor dimmish the scope of the waiver of immunity. Id.

Chambers v. United States

451 F.2d 1045 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1971

Such waiver cannot be established by implication. There is no specific waiver of immunity by Congress in this case. The Tucker Act ( 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1964)) does not help the plaintiff. … He testified Miss Bennett was qualified, but he didn’t know the facts of the case.

Haberman v. United States

38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,420 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 15, 1992

In order to be sued, the United States must have relinquished its sovereign immunity and it has not been so relinquished for contracts implied in law. … Rather, it clearly informs the adopter that he or she must make further application and undergo further screening in order to qualify for the program, and move towards obtaining title.

NRG Co. v. United States

24 Cl. Ct. 51 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 28, 1991

Here, as in United Nuclear, the government chose to modify the established rules after the pertinent agreements were entered. … First, Congress clearly was not acting in a traditional arbiter’s role when it enacted the Cancellation Act.

Matthews v. Secretary of the Dept. of Health & Human Services

18 Cl. Ct. 514 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 25, 1989

Evidence of Krabbe’s or Schilder’s disease, as alternative cause of Tommy’s injury and death, is clearly hypothetical. … Na-rowski on January 11, 1956, was "encephalopathy secondary to DPT immunization ...” P. Exhibit No. 18. Dr. Henry W.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States

4 Cl. Ct. 762 · United States Court of Claims · Mar 22, 1984

United States, 403 F.2d 57, 59 (5th Cir.1968) (waiver of a federal right must be clearly established); Kahn v. … Our precedents clearly establish that such soil settlement is not an act of God within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 1321 (i)(l)(a). See Sabine Towing & Transportation Co. v.

Tweten v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services

26 Cl. Ct. 405 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 22, 1991

Tweten’s statement that Christopher had received the DPT immunization approximately “one week” prior to the seizures. … She now remembers clearly the first occurrence even though she may not have been so clear about it at the time____ Tweten v.

Victory Carriers, Inc. v. United States

467 F.2d 1334 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 13, 1972

receive credit for sales and similar taxes or foreign taxes of any kind to the extent classifiable as vessel operating expense under said General Order No. 22, if the General Agent shall have used due diligence to secure immunity … It is well-established that an agent is responsible to his principal for the actions of a sub-agent in handling the affairs of the principal which have been entrusted to the sub-agent.

Beneficial Foundation, Inc. v. United States

8 Cl. Ct. 639 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 9, 1985

Quite clearly, the Service has drawn a relatively broad perimeter in describing the purposes a program may have and still satisfy subsection (g)(3). … establish that the purpose of its grant program is sufficiently narrow to meet the requirements of subsection (g)(3).

Transcountry Packing Co. v. United States

568 F.2d 1333 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 25, 1978

This court is a court of limited statutory jurisdiction which cannot be expanded beyond the bounds established by the Congress. Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270, 273 (1957); Carney v. United States, 199 Ct. … As in Somali Development Bank , plaintiffs petition clearly sounds in tort.