Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
2.00s
Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 13, 2019
The Supreme Court established in Lebron v. … Second, plaintiffs have not asserted claims that qualify as both direct and derivative based on the dual-nature exception.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 26, 2024
The Tucker Act’s six-year statute of limitations is “jurisdictional,” as it limits the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, and the court must consider the timeliness of a claim even if neither party raises it. … Nicholas’s claims clearly fall out- side this court’s jurisdiction for the multiple reasons described above. Thus, the court will not appoint counsel for Mr. Nicholas. D. Mr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTMI Management Systems, Inc. v. United States
78 Fed. Cl. 445 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 25, 2007
However, TMI no longer qualifies as a small business and no longer certifies itself as one when submitting offers for new government contracts. … The terms of the Contract regarding the possible option period in clause-I-FSS-163 clearly give the Government the discretion to decide not to exercise the option.
Cited 3 timesPublished76 Fed. Cl. 376 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 24, 2007
Plaintiffs, however, bear the ultimate burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction over their claims. See Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 747 ; Burgess v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 701, 703 (1990). II. … Congressional consent to suit in the Court of Federal Claims, which thereby waives sovereign immunity, must be explicit and strictly construed. United States v.
Cited 69 timesPublishedFlorida Power & Light Co. v. United States
64 Fed. Cl. 37 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2005
Therefore, the doctrine of sovereign immunity will override the res judicata effect of a prior decision if the “issuing court’s lack of jurisdiction ‘directly implicat[es] issues of sovereign immunity.’ ” Id. at 1332 (quoting … Moreover, although the Act clearly contemplates a “contract,” it just as clearly did not provide for review of that contract in the usual forum, the Court of Federal Claims.
Cited 9 timesPublishedFirstLine Transportation Security, Inc. v. United States
107 Fed. Cl. 189 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 19, 2012
One part of this argument flows directly from FirstLine’s assertion that TSA was required to specifically identify sufficient qualified small business concerns before establishing the subcontracting goal. … The solicitation clearly calls for offerors to develop their own, innovative approaches to staffing, AR at Tab 4, p. 65-66, 170-71, 244-45, and 386 (Questions 263-66), and establishes standards according to which TSA will
Cited 11 timesPublished123 Fed. Cl. 679 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 2, 2015
STANDARDS FOR DECISION Section 1915 of Title 28 enables federal courts to allow a person to commence an action without prepayment ofcourt fees, so long as the person provides a swom affidavit establishing his or … But today, Paragraph 1915(e)(2) provides that cowts "shall" dismiss Nr informa pauperis filing if it is frivolous, lails to state a claim, or is against an immune defendant.
Cited 15 timesPublishedUsibelli Coal Mine v. United States
54 Fed. Cl. 373 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 8, 2002
. § 1491 (a), on claims for which they have not complied with the administrative tax refund statute is now established. See Cyprus Amax, supra. … Rather, as noted previously, “[i]n the absence of express congressional consent to the award of interest separate from a general waiver of immunity to suit, the United States is immune from an interest award.”
Reversed on other grounds by Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. v. United States, 311 Fed. Appx. 350 (2008)Cited 13 timesPublishedScience Applications International Corp. v. United States
108 Fed. Cl. 235 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 7, 2012
The RFP clearly required each proposal to stand on its own. … The underlying bases for the respective ratings are clearly dissimilar.
Cited 39 timesPublished73 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 569 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 5, 2011
and to establish standing to bring this suit.”); Nahno-Lopez v. … In the context of the Fifth Amendment, “the key date for accrual purposes is the date on which the plaintiffs land has been clearly and permanently taken.”
Cited 12 timesPublishedSabella v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services
86 Fed. Cl. 201 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 2, 2009
The special master clearly articulated his reasons for establishing the reasonable hourly rates for Mr. Korin and Mr. Shoemaker. See Sabella, 2008 WL 4426040 , at *3-9. … According to petitioner, “[b]y demonstrating ‘immune cerebritis[,’] Dr.
Cited 2,388 timesPublishedDellew Corporation v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 85 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 20, 2016
In our view, the cited comments are clearly not sufficient to establish a judicial imprimatur and they do not constitute a “court-ordered change in the legal relationship” of the … Thus, an agency must establish that it was rationally based.
Cited 1 timesPublishedHoward v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 2, 2018
Nemechek defined as chemicals produced by the immune system in response to infection or injury that serve a “critical role in coordinating the body’s defensive [immune] system”) can “surge” in production after stimulation … Low was thus amply qualified to provide expert testimony in this case 13 useful to its resolution.15 Like Dr. Nemechek, Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedFord Motor Company v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 104 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2017
The Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity and allows a plaintiff to sue the United States for money damages, United States v. … To qualify as a FSC and receive the tax advantages offered by Sections 921 to 927, Export was required to and did in fact establish itself as a foreign corporation with a separate and distinct identity from Ford.7
Cited 1 timesPublishedFramaco International, Inc. v. United States
119 Fed. Cl. 311 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 11, 2015
Defendant indicated that “DOS has since dis-qualified Pernix Group.” … OBO found Framaco qualified previously under almost identical situations.
Cited 4 timesPublishedDe Graffenried v. United States
29 Fed. Cl. 384 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 4, 1993
Clearly, defendant’s expert’s highest valuation is much closer than plaintiff’s expert’s to the court’s ultimate damage award. … Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1351 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980) (waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed).
Cited 8 timesPublishedComcation, Inc. v. United States
78 Fed. Cl. 61 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 17, 2007
As recently noted by another court construing this section— “Privilege” is clearly a more expansive concept than use. … To qualify under this definition, a system must work within a single premise, that is, be intrapremise.
Cited 7 timesPublishedV. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 11, 2022
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … of the elements established by the Federal Circuit in Althen.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCms Contract Management Services v. United States
110 Fed. Cl. 537 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2013
As the 1999 RFP clearly demonstrates, and no party contests, since the ACCs in question in this bid protest have been performance-based since the 1999 RFP, the Court will use the term “PBCAAs” throughout the remainder of … At some point not clearly established in the record, HUD received approval to extend the contracts for an additional ten years. Id. 272. B.
Reversed by CMS Contract Management Services v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, 745 F.3d 1379 (2014)Cited 6 timesPublishedActive Deployment Systems, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 30, 2025
The government encourages vendors to propose against any part of [the Solicitation] but must clearly elect which objective(s) (I-VIII) and which services it is proposing in its submissions.” AR 428. … The Solicitation stated that ICE planned to award contracts “to five (5) or more qualifying offerors whose proposals represent the best overall value to the government.” AR 1727.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna