Case law

HWA, Inc. v. United States

78 Fed. Cl. 685 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 26, 2007

Thus, FPS’s award to WSI demonstrates that FPS acted in accordance with the evaluation criteria established in the third amendment to the RFQ. 3. … Finally, the evidence does not establish that FPS acted irrationally or unreasonably in evaluating HWA’s past performance.

Defense Technology, Inc. v. United States

99 Fed. Cl. 103 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 14, 2011

As to the second prong, to establish standing to protest a sole-source award, “a bidder ‘must show that it would have been a qualified bidder.’ ” KSD, Inc. v. … As a result, plaintiff is a qualified bidder and has standing to protest AMCOM’s proposed sole-source award. C.

Aguilar v. United States

36 Fed. Cl. 560 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 7, 1996

The FLSA, however, does not clearly define what types of activity qualify as work under the statute. … Plaintiffs and defendant debate whether or not the work performed by the agents qualifies as de minimis. This argument is irrelevant.

Baird v. United States

71 Fed. Cl. 536 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 1, 2006

The Tucker Act defines the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction, and waives the federal government’s sovereign immunity in certain actions. … After suffering a heart attack, plaintiff more than a year later sought to qualify for retired status and be placed on the Army’s Disability Retired List. Id. at 493-94 , 471 F.2d 627 .

Ford Motor Co. v. United States

94 Fed. Cl. 211 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 13, 2010

Since Ford’[s] employees were required to have reported for work on or before that date in order to receive the bonus, the bonuses paid by Ford clearly did not meet the narrow conditions required under Rev. … As such, contrary to Ford’s argument, documents dated after June 16, 2004, and before November 3, 2004, qualify as predecisional.

Deseret Management Corp. v. United States

76 Fed. Cl. 88 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 2007

Those communications qualify as attorney-client communications as required by PG & E I. … Similarly, after citing the same language, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stated that “a broad assertion of harm is [therefore] clearly not enough.

Standard Communications, Inc. v. United States

106 Fed. Cl. 165 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 2, 2012

Although DVA overlooked the qualifying term “including,” id., its position at the agency level and before this Court did not clearly offend the history of FAR 15.308, its plain language, see Patrick, 668 F.3d at 1330-31 , … Heckler, 756 F.2d 959, 962 (3d Cir.1985) (“When the government’s legal position clearly offends established precedent, however, its position cannot be said to be ‘substantially justified.’”).

Patton v. United States

64 Fed. Cl. 768 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 23, 2005

[The plaintiff] bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748 ; see also Moyer v. … Patton was clearly on notice of a potential breach of the FBI’s alleged promise to pay the storage fees. Mr.

Sherwin v. United States

42 Fed. Cl. 672 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 13, 1999

The individual claimants, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional statute for a waiver of sovereign immunity. *675 United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. at 398 , 96 S.Ct. 948 . … The term must in the law clearly shows that this is not an “optional remedjf’ but a necessary foray in order for all administrative channels to be followed before asking the appropriate Court of Law to force compliance by

Gonzales Ex Rel. Gonzales v. United States

115 Fed. Cl. 779 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2014

The court finds that the McLaren F1 was designed for public road use and qualifies as an automobile under the statute. … Plaintiff avers that its own ignorance of the law was reasonable because the IRS did not clearly explain the pertinent tax rules.

Homeland Security Solutions, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 18, 2022

And “[i]f the Secretary of Defense establishes a pilot program under this section, the Secretary shall establish mechanisms to collect and analyze data on the pilot program . . . .” … Assuming DoD has chosen to implement the pilot program, a fact not clearly established in the record, the Court cannot agree that the fact that DoD has not fully implemented the pilot program in six months is unreasonable

Morris v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 25, 2016

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 … establish.

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.

Dourandish v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2015

To establish standing, a party seeking to invoke federal court jurisdiction must demonstrate: (!) … The Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity, authorizing a claimant to sue the United States for monetary damages. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216 (1983).

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,

Smith v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 15, 2022

The Court sees no reason to deviate from the well-established rule that the later request for administrative review of Mr. … This conclusion is further supported by the stringent standard applied to waivers of sovereign immunity.

Dico, Inc. v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 25, 1993

In 1983, an area in Des Moines along the Raccoon River was listed on the national priorities list established under CERCLA. … Absent any express and unequivocal statutory basis, this court may not, under long established principles, waive or extend a statutory limitation on the sovereign's immunity to suit. Cf.

Behrens v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 16, 2021

To have and to hold the same, together with all the rights, immunities, privileges and appurtenances to the same . . . , and to its successors and assigns forever . . . .” … The court does not find, however, that these conveyances are in fee—Missouri law clearly does not allow for such a conclusion given the nominal consideration.

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.

International Paper Co. v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 384 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 27, 1995

Rather, the indisputable facts establish that, prior to executing the cutting contracts with ILC, IP had determined where and to whom ILC would deliver the timber. … The indisputable material facts clearly show that ILC did not have an investment opportunity or assume risk in the sale of timber in the open market.