Case law

Hannon v. United States

29 Fed. Cl. 142 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 19, 1993

If a money mandating statute is found, no further waiver of sovereign immunity, beyond the Tucker Act, need be pled. Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 218 , 103 S.Ct. at 2968 ; Huston v. … Plaintiffs improperly cite to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1346 and 5 U.S.C. § 702 as establishing proper jurisdiction in this court over their claims.

Lester v. United States

85 Fed. Cl. 742 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 17, 2009

The Back Pay Act can qualify as a money-mandating statute granting this Court jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Worthington v. United States, 168 F.3d 24, 26 (Fed.Cir.1999). … Rather, the APA waives sovereign immunity only for claims seeking “relief other than money damages.” 5 U.S.C. § 702 (2006) (emphasis added).

Prophet v. United States

106 Fed. Cl. 456 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 8, 2012

Although this plaintiff may qualify for in forma pawperis status, as is discussed below, his complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this court. … It is well established that “‘subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.’ ” Arbaugh v.

Jackson v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 19, 2022

Cl. at 589 (“The certificate must clearly state or show” the requirements of section 2513 are met.). … Again, this is clearly not a certificate of innocence satisfying section 2513 as it relates to Plaintiff.

Corby Homes Ltd. Partnership v. United States

38 Fed. Cl. 204 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 8, 1997

The Tucker Act is a waiver of sovereign immunity, which requires a substantive right to money from the United States for there to be jurisdiction in this court. Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 353 (1995). … To establish jurisdiction, plaintiff must identify a contract or money-mandating constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision that vests this court with jurisdiction. See Sanders v.

Hastings v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 8, 2023

Further, what claims the Court can discern by liberally construing the Complaint fall clearly outside the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. See supra Discussion Sections I–III. … Feb. 1, 2021) (dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as a “qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915”); Hastings v. United States, No. 22-cv-531, 2022 WL 2679990, at *5 (Fed. Cl.

National Leased Housing Ass'n v. United States

32 Fed. Cl. 454 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 1994

It is a fundamental legal tenant that the United States as sovereign is immune from suit except where it consents to be sued and that any such waiver of sovereign immunity must be narrowly construed. United States v. … The Owner shall submit to the Government financial statements which clearly support the increase. d. Overall Limitation.

McGuire v. United States

97 Fed. Cl. 425 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 18, 2011

Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds. Id. … If the Ninth Circuit’s decision is clearly erroneous, it would be reversible error for the Court to let it stand. See, e.g., Rodriguez v.

Peterson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 24, 2025

But Langer-Gould’s authors actually qualified significantly this aspect of their study’s findings. … Of course, that is in fact what happened—and literature filed by Petitioner in this case clearly establishes that TM can be an initial presenting clinical manifestation of MS.

Leming v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 1, 2021

In their petition, the Lemings alleged that the vaccines that A.L. received on September 6, 2016 caused her to experience immune thrombocytopenic purpura, immune dysfunction, and immunodeficiency. Pet. for Comp. … The bone marrow aspiration performed on A.L. qualifies as a surgical procedure under all of these references. It was performed by a surgeon, Dr. James Harper. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 22.

Yates v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 11, 2020

“But it clearly does not rule out that there was an eosinophilic reaction earlier that we just don’t see in the slides. … However, the evidence submitted in this case clearly establishes that Robert’s cause of death was lymphocytic myocarditis which is most commonly caused by viral infection.

Frette v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 8, 2018

as a ‘Table’ claim qualified to a presumption of causation.” … Wirrell’s opinion “clearly mirrors” the Vaccine Injury Table definition of encephalopathy. Pet. Reply at 4.

Yeskoo v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 720 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 1996

The individual claimants, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional statute for a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. at 398 , 96 S.Ct. at 953 . … Although the specific expenses to be reimbursed are discretionary and may be defined in further regulation, 5 U.S.C. § 5724a(a) and 41 C.F.R. § 302-6.1 appear clearly to establish the right of an employee to claim reimbursement

Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation v. United States

110 Fed. Cl. 251 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 18, 2013

“The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). A waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” … Moreover, defendant argues that the 1995 complaint clearly claimed damages for the entire period of the 1995 fiscal year contracts, for all monies due under those contracts, and that the Settlement Agreement made clear that

Stamps v. United States

73 Fed. Cl. 603 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 26, 2006

. § 1915 (a)(1), in order to qualify for informa pauperis status, an applicant must file an affidavit which includes a statement of assets, a statement that the applicant is unable to pay such fees or provide security, the … A plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.Cir.1988); Thomas v.

Evergreen Trading, LLC ex rel. GN Investments, LLC v. United States

80 Fed. Cl. 122 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 2007

Counsel’s advice clearly could play a role in whether either penalty is sustained. … immunity given to work product ... ”).

Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 524 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 12, 2001

The Court rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that the Government is not entitled to summary judgment without establishing that the Plaintiffs did not use new technology. … Written determinations by the IRS, unless otherwise established by regulations, cannot be used or cited as precedent. 26 U.S.C. § 6110 (k)(3).

Board of County Supervisors v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 678 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 24, 1996

Kelsey did not conduct an appraisal of the subject land, or the surrounding land, and because he testified that he did not feel qualified to appraise the land, the court accords little credence to Mr. … Plaintiff clearly established at trial that it spent $100,000 on improvements.

John Doe 21 v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

88 Fed. Cl. 178 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2009

On January 31, 2000, Petitioner received a Hepatitis B immunization. Id. at 65. … The record, however, establishes that Petitioner’s “adverse reaction” manifested on July 20, 1999, likely was manifest on October 4, 1999 during Petitioner’s examination, and clearly was manifested by November 8,1999 at his

Suliman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 27, 2018

immune responses. … immune system as an important pathological hallmark of dermatomyositis.