Case law

Ammon v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 7, 2019

Lack of Ambiguity of offer and acceptance is clearly established by the assignment of [Mr. … Ammon correctly recites the elements to establish a breach of contract, including the elements to establish the existence of an express contract, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to consider his breach-of-contract

Dwen v. United States

62 Fed. Cl. 76 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 14, 2004

. § 2415 (c) to establish “title to, or right of possession of, real ... property.” … The waiver of sovereign immunity must be expressed unequivocally and cannot be implied. United States v.

Morgan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 11, 2018

Id. 13 T and B cells are the body’s immunologically competent cells—T cells are responsible for cellular immunity, while B cells control humoral (blood) immunity. … Longman’s research and publications have been focused on “defining roles for particular types of immune cells and how they integrate the signals from bacteria to regulate mucosal immunity and systemic immunity.” Id.

Kaetz v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 8, 2022

“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). The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” … Cl. 1958) (“It is well established that the jurisdiction of this court extends only to claims against the United States, and obviously a controversy between private parties could not be entertained.”

A & D Fire Protection, Inc. v. United States

72 Fed. Cl. 126 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 10, 2006

Such a stratagem attempts to evade the bar of task order bid protests clearly enunciated in Section 253j (d). But see Cmty. … In short, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that it was a qualified bidder. Id. at 1370-71.

Boyd Bros. Transp. Co. v. United States

27 Fed. Cl. 502 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 30, 1992

Clearly, when evaluating intent, the IRS would not reasonably be expected to give any significant weight to such a self-serving document prepared after an audit has commenced. … While the IRS does not clearly articulate what act constitutes the required identification in Priv.Ltr.Rul. 85-31-006, the IRS does not indicate that a standard other than the "at the time of payment" standard articulated

Small v. United States

36 Fed. Cl. 43 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 8, 1996

In fact, the regulation allows in-dorsement chains to be established “by supplement to this regulation or by common usage in the unit.” AFR 36-10 H2-23b. … And since it clearly is impermissible under the guidelines of AFR 36-10 to take account of an officer’s promotion passovers in determining the ratings to be assigned to those performance factors, so likewise is it impermissible

Pellegrino v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 21, 2025

Again, the record does not establish any close-in-time reaction to the flu vaccine that would be consistent with vaccine stimulation of the innate immune system leading to an aberrant autoimmune process. III. … But even with the aid of a qualified expert like Dr.

Colorado Department of Human Services v. United States

74 Fed. Cl. 339 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2006

“The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims is prescribed by the metes and bounds of the United States’ consent to be sued in its waiver of immunity.” RHI Holdings, 142 F.3d at 1461 . … Circuit reversed, however, finding that plaintiffs did not qualify for any exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. Id. at 111 . Although the D.C.

Glosemeyer v. United States

45 Fed. Cl. 771 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 14, 2000

Application of that rule in the context of easements held by railroads was perhaps most clearly explained in Kansas City Area Transp. … A "qualified trail provider” is a “state, political subdivision, or qualified private organization that is prepared to assume full responsibility for management of [railroad] rights-of-way and for any legal liability arising

Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2018

The Tucker Act thus waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to allow a suit for money damages. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). … As is readily apparent, although Congress qualified the word corporation in subsection (c)(3)(A) by adding the modifier “C,” it did not qualify the word corporation at all in subsection (a)(1).

Allen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 23, 2022

Gershwin concluded his second report stating, “not only can an intradermal vaccination induce an immune response, but it can clearly cause a local inflammatory reaction and injury that Ms. … Graboff conceded that, “the medical records clearly show that there were findings of a rotator cuff tear, but also clearly documents in numerous locations that there was adhesive capsulitis/frozen shoulder.” Pet.

Klamath Irrigation District v. United States

67 Fed. Cl. 504 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 31, 2005

Other cases in this court have likewise held that the suspensions of contracts under the ESA qualify as “public and general acts.” … At most, Yankee Atomic has a vested right to be immune from later attempts to retroactively increase the prices charged.

Green v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 28, 2024

However, respondent contends that petitioner has not preponderantly established the fact of her allegedly injury-causing vaccination. (ECF Nos. 43, 84.) … Here, petitioner did later specifically request petitioner’s immunization records; however, as discussed above, Island Medical Group’s production of records in response to petitioner’s subpoena was clearly incomplete and,

Liu v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 13, 2019

At that time “[P]etitioner’s claim was clearly undermined and no longer objectively feasible.” Id. at *15. … Here, they argue, Petitioners offered eight expert reports by three qualified experts, each of the opinion that the vaccine caused Dan’s death. Id.

Bates v. United States

60 Fed. Cl. 319 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 7, 2004

Gilbert’s job clearly involved the sort of desk work contemplated by this prong of the test. … Even assuming that some of Larson’s duties could qualify for the primary duty test, as in the other positions, plaintiffs argue that there is insufficient evidence that a majority of Larson’s duty could qualify for the primary

Fuller v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 14, 2020

A, Tab 29 at 2.7 While multiple genes have been implicated, a “genetic tendency is clearly insufficient in itself to cause febrile seizures.” Id. … Kinsbourne explains that “[v]accinations activate the innate immune system, which enables adaptive immunity to develop,” by stimulating the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Pet. Ex. 21 at 4.

Lawrence v. United States

69 Fed. Cl. 550 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 1, 2006

It is well established that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not obligate the Government to pay money damages. Collins v. … The Government clearly has the authority to recoup funds that it erroneously paid and is not estopped from doing so by the mistakes of its officers or agents. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v.

Giesecke & Devrient Gmbh v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 10, 2022

Thus, not every case that qualifies as exceptional under Section 285 also qualifies for sanctions under the court’s inherent authority. … They’re clearly making claim construction arguments . . . that, in our view, would be contrary to the law.”).

CSE Construction Co. v. United States

58 Fed. Cl. 230 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2003

That is, although CSE was considered to be the “second best qualified offeror,” CSE was not selected because of its two marginal ratings and “unreasonably low” price. … These defects clearly suggest plaintiff had a substantial chance of receiving the COC.